I want this thread to use as a placeholder for some experiments i am doing, for experiments sprang of from other threads but being off topic or otherwise not wanted there,
or simply to drop some video's and pictures to be used by other members.
Itsu
First here a video of an experiment looking for NMR in a iron powdered toroid done in cooperation with verpies.
No nmr (45.5Mhz) was seen using the procedures in the below video.
Suggestions are welcom.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiCp_90A9qk
Itsu
Another experiment i am doing is about the anomaly Tinman showed in his Magnet/coil drive circuit here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3684.0
Picture below shows the circuit with components.
Anomaly reported is that the average current through csr2 is always higher then the average current through csr1.
LTspice simulation shows this too, as well as a real life circuit.
LT spice shows this with run times below 1s, above 1s run times the difference is almost none.
Probably this has to do with the fact that around 1s capacitor C2 is charged to its max. but how this interacts with
the current through csr2 is one of the questions.
The idea is that the current should be the same or through csr1 slightly higher, due to losses, then through csr2.
LTspice sim file attached below (using a floating FG, also in the real circuit)
LTspice sim picture below. (blue: csr2 current, green: csr1 current)
Screenshot life circuit. (yellow: csr1 current, blue: csr2 current).
Itsu
The difference in the sim is the greatest when using a single cycle from Q1 Off to Q1 Off again,
see picture of 1 cycle with its average currents.
Itsu
Itsu,
For your 200ms run, I'd say the two average currents are close enough to equal for government work.
See below for my results in pspice. (Blues is the base current trace)
Power distribution in the circuit...
I don't know the specs of Brad's coil, so this is just a guess.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.16, 20:37:35
Another experiment i am doing is about the anomaly Tinman showed in his Magnet/coil drive circuit here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3684.0
Picture below shows the circuit with components.
Anomaly reported is that the average current through csr2 is always higher then the average current through csr1.
LTspice simulation shows this too, as well as a real life circuit.
LT spice shows this with run times below 1s, above 1s run times the difference is almost none.
Probably this has to do with the fact that around 1s capacitor C2 is charged to its max. but how this interacts with
the current through csr2 is one of the questions.
The idea is that the current should be the same or through csr1 slightly higher, due to losses, then through csr2.
LTspice sim file attached below (using a floating FG, also in the real circuit)
LTspice sim picture below. (blue: csr2 current, green: csr1 current)
Screenshot life circuit. (yellow: csr1 current, blue: csr2 current).
Itsu
Itsu
What if the transistor is swapped out for a mosfet ?
Would this then remove the base current input in question ?
Just a thought
Dear Itsu
Could you explain why you were searching for NMR in a core in the manner described? What were the original thoughts or direction to proceed using the method shown in the video?
What are the conclusions from yourself and verpies on the negative outcome?
Thanks
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.16, 21:42:44
Itsu,
For your 200ms run, I'd say the two average currents are close enough to equal for government work.
See below for my results in pspice. (Blues is the base current trace)
Thanks Poynt99,
so these probe indicators on the diagram are from pspice.
I miss them in LTspice.
Anyway, so you also see avg csr2 current being higher then avg csr1 current (nonsense_avg01.png).
By the way i have the FG (V2) return connected directly to Q1 emitter.
What about the Power distribution, i miss the csr1 power or do you use another point to show it?
I also see the csr3 power slowly increase still, would it be so that this level has to stabilize first
before the csr1 and csr2 currents are equal?
Itsu
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.17, 01:42:47
Itsu
What if the transistor is swapped out for a mosfet ?
Would this then remove the base current input in question ?
Just a thought
Brad,
there were a few remarks in your "non sense pulse motor" thread about that by ION, F6FLT and muDped.
I circumvent that (base current included in csr2 current) by using a floating FG which is across base and emitter
of Q1, thus its current is not running through csr2.
But i could try a MOSFET to see if it changes anything (some feedthrough through the shutdown Q1 transistor).
itsu
Quote from: ion on 2019.01.17, 03:05:13
Dear Itsu
Could you explain why you were searching for NMR in a core in the manner described? What were the original thoughts or direction to proceed using the method shown in the video?
What are the conclusions from yourself and verpies on the negative outcome?
Thanks
ION,
verpies asked me to do these tests on an iron powdered toroid related to this thread:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3689.msg70648#msg70648
Up till now i did not see any indiction of any 45.5mhz NMR using the shown procedures, but i know
that these kind of procedures are in need of being adjusted and refined which will take some time and efforts.
So any input on the used procedures are appreciated.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.17, 10:50:57
Anyway, so you also see avg csr2 current being higher then avg csr1 current (nonsense_avg01.png).
By the way i have the FG (V2) return connected directly to Q1 emitter.
Yes, CSR2 avg current is greater than CSR1, due to base current draw.
Quote
What about the Power distribution, i miss the csr1 power or do you use another point to show it?
You did not miss the CSR1 power. It is so small I omitted it.
Quote
I also see the csr3 power slowly increase still, would it be so that this level has to stabilize first
before the csr1 and csr2 currents are equal?
Itsu
CSR3 (the load) increases slowly yes, but it will have no effect on the CSR1/CSR2 differential.
Again, I don't see anything remarkable about CSR2 avg current being larger than CSR1's. Does anyone?
Ok, how about my post #3, the difference in 1 cycle is about 38% higher avg current through csr2 then through csr1.
And i don't have any base current there as i use a floating FG across B/E.
Itsu
Itsu,
One cycle, especially the very first cycle doesn't have much meaning in these measurements. What were are interested in are values in "steady/normal/running state", and we can't get those unless we take a large sample of cycles.
Ok, we cannot in the sims, but we can in the real circuit, but then you cannot check/confirm it.
So the claim of csr2 having more average current then csr1 cannot be confirmed or denied.
Thanks, Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.17, 11:00:23
Brad,
there were a few remarks in your "non sense pulse motor" thread about that by ION, F6FLT and muDped.
I circumvent that (base current included in csr2 current) by using a floating FG which is across base and emitter
of Q1, thus its current is not running through csr2.
But i could try a MOSFET to see if it changes anything (some feedthrough through the shutdown Q1 transistor).
itsu
Ok, i modified the sim to use a IRF530 MOSFET and things look better there, see picture below.
With only 1 cycle visible, (worse case with the transistor) i have almost equal avg currents through csr1 and csr2.
Will try tomorrow in the real circuit.
Itsu
Itsu
Your posted pics of the sim and the .asc file are not quite in agreement. One shows 3V for the FET, the other 5V.
I was not getting your waveforms, but changing the drive to agree with your posted picture (5V) solved that.
I would recommend you use 10V to drive the IRF530 as the gate threshold voltage of 2 to 4 volts only guarantees 250 uA drain current.
With 5 volts on the gate, you can't guarantee the FET is full on. ( ok in the sim but could be marginal on the bench) This would be especially problematic if the FG drive were not to the source but the other side of CSR2, which would degenerate the FET reducing the drive signal. Good that you are floating the FG and driving the FET directly, however be aware this also has it's own set of minor problems. (capacitance of the FG internal power supply to earth ground and noise that it may generate if it has a switchmode supply)
10 volts however will insure the FET is fully on and is the typical value used to specify full drain current on the data sheets.
Other thing is the run time is specified differently in the .asc file, but that is also easily changed by the user to 20m.
Regards
With your latest circuit, it works with one cycle, two cycles, or many cycles. The csr avg currents are always the equal.
However, be aware that if you increase C1 to 10,000u and only view the two pulses as you are above, the avg currents will not be the same because the current doesn't settle down to 0mA after each pulse like it does when C1 is 330u. This is one reason why we should almost always be using many cycles to allow the sim or scope compute a proper and accurate avg value.
The sim file posted above does not match with the picture or settings. I have made some adjustments to it (attached).
PS. I didn't see your post Ion, but yes good point on the drive voltage. I left it at 5V because it seemed to be switching ok. I just tried it with 10V and the results are pretty close (slightly higher avg current).
Here is another go at the circuit. I changed the following:
1) period and PW are now 20ms and 1ms respectively, for a nice even number of cycles on the display.
2) ran the sim for 660ms, but set it to collect data only after 360ms, for a total display of 300ms worth of data.
See the .tran statement circled in red. I have also set a 10us limit to the step size for smooth data sampling. The reason I set the data collection for after 360ms, is to allow the circuit to stabilize or settle down to its normal running condition before we start collecting the data we are going to use for computations. This eliminates any transient or charging conditions exhibited by the circuit after it is first energized. This is one of the reasons the avg currents in csr1 and csr2 can be different, even with many samples on the display.
The avg currents are now equal, regardless how many cycles you run. Change the run time to 400ms to show only two pulses if you wish, and the avg currents will still be equal.
Good work guys
Simple question from one noob such as I that is not too acquainted with the nuances of LTSpice.
How do you get two or more power windows to stay up as Itsu did? I can get one, but must exit it to be able to cntrl/left click the other trace to get it to display. I see nothing in the help file. (maybe I'm not looking in the right area)
I must close the first waveform box in order to open the second or LTSpice beeps at me to close the first.
Using XP. and LTSpice IV
Thanks in advance.
I have the same question Ion.
The only thing I can think of is perhaps that capability is in a newer version than I have. I guess we will see what Itsu says. ;)
Quote from: ion on 2019.01.17, 22:51:12
Itsu
Your posted pics of the sim and the .asc file are not quite in agreement. One shows 3V for the FET, the other 5V.
I was not getting your waveforms, but changing the drive to agree with your posted picture (5V) solved that.
I would recommend you use 10V to drive the IRF530 as the gate threshold voltage of 2 to 4 volts only guarantees 250 uA drain current.
With 5 volts on the gate, you can't guarantee the FET is full on. ( ok in the sim but could be marginal on the bench) This would be especially problematic if the FG drive were not to the source but the other side of CSR2, which would degenerate the FET reducing the drive signal. Good that you are floating the FG and driving the FET directly, however be aware this also has it's own set of minor problems. (capacitance of the FG internal power supply to earth ground and noise that it may generate if it has a switchmode supply)
10 volts however will insure the FET is fully on and is the typical value used to specify full drain current on the data sheets.
Other thing is the run time is specified differently in the .asc file, but that is also easily changed by the user to 20m.
Regards
ION,
sorry for the mismatch between .asc file and picture, guess i did not save the .asc file after making changes.
I to had problems with the 3V initially to get the MOSFET switching, so i changed it to 5V.
I did not want to go higher (like 10V) as my floating real life FG cannot go higher then 5V dc (10pp).
Also the runtimes changed (but did not save either) to check if the equal avg currents stay equal over several run times.
Concerning the "two or more power windows" you and Poynt are wondering about, this is not possible in LTspice it seems,
so i made a copy of the LTspice screen (alt-PrtSc on your keyboard) and paste it into Paint.net, then put up 1 "power window", again do
alt-PrtSc (now it ONLY copies this little power window), do a "paste as new layer" (not sure if thats how it called
in an English version of paint.net), move it to where you want it, then repeat this for the other "power window".
Save the picture as a .png file and it will ask to merge the layers and whalla.
Itsu
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.17, 23:12:31
With your latest circuit, it works with one cycle, two cycles, or many cycles. The csr avg currents are always the equal.
However, be aware that if you increase C1 to 10,000u and only view the two pulses as you are above, the avg currents will not be the same because the current doesn't settle down to 0mA after each pulse like it does when C1 is 330u. This is one reason why we should almost always be using many cycles to allow the sim or scope compute a proper and accurate avg value.
The sim file posted above does not match with the picture or settings. I have made some adjustments to it (attached).
PS. I didn't see your post Ion, but yes good point on the drive voltage. I left it at 5V because it seemed to be switching ok. I just tried it with 10V and the results are pretty close (slightly higher avg current).
Poynt99,
i was using the 10000uF C1 (and 470uF C2) already when using the transistor, so the only change was the MOSFET.
Still there is a noticable change in currents between csr1 and csr2 (equal with MOSFET, difference with transistor)
Thanks for the new .asc file, i will download it later today and check.
First look at my real life circuit using a IRF530 MOSFET still shows some difference between csr1 and csr2 currents
(55mA / 60mA), but will do some further tests (more or less cycles etc.) later today.
Itsu
Just a little digression. I redrawn the circuit in a form more familiar to me, and often used by electronics engineers for simple assemblies. Functionally it is exactly the same.
It's amazing how one can have a mind distorted by habits: the redrawn scheme seems to me to be clear and straightforward, immediately understandable, whereas I had to think a lot more about the first drawing!
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.18, 10:57:53
Just a little digression. I redrawn the circuit in a form more familiar to me, and often used by electronics engineers for simple assemblies. Functionally it is exactly the same.
It's amazing how one can have a mind distorted by habits: the redrawn scheme seems to me to be clear and straightforward, immediately understandable, whereas I had to think a lot more about the first drawing!
F6FLT
I am in complete agreement. There is a convention of form in drawing circuits, left to right signal flow, top and bottom rails etc.
that makes them easy to understand.
Regards
Quote from: ion on 2019.01.17, 03:05:13
Dear Itsu
Could you explain why you were searching for NMR in a core in the manner described? What were the original thoughts or direction to proceed using the method shown in the video?
I put him up to it in relation to the
these patents (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citedDocuments?CC=FR&NR=2680613A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=19930226&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP) and
this thread (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3689.msg71214#msg71214) since using a Spectrum Analyzer to see if there is any RF energy absorption at 45.55Mhz in iron powder is simple and relevant.
The internal 33T field of iron ferromagnetic domains effectively marginalizes the effects of any small ambient fields, removing the need for creating extremely homogeneous
external fields, which are typically necessary for NMR experiments.
Also, it is known, that an RF field which is experienced by nuclear spin is enhanced due to the motion of the magnetization of ELECTRON SPINS by the applied RF field thus the NMR signal is enhanced by the same factor. Furthermore, the enhancement factor in domain walls is generally much larger than in domains themselves.
All of the above leads me to believe that some 45.5MHz signal should be observable.
Quote from: ion on 2019.01.17, 03:05:13
What are the conclusions from yourself and verpies on the negative outcome?
That power levels and impedance matching (RF current coupling to core) need to be better or the typical perpendicular biasing magnetic field will be necessary to see anything. I was hoping the remanence will not leave domains so perfectly randomized, that their signals cancel out.
According to the attached paper, the rotation of domains in iron powder begins at 300mT and ends around 750mT.
Dear Verpies
Thanks for taking the time in explaining the background information regarding Itsu's tests. I will attempt to assimilate the supplied information.
Regards
Ok guys, thanks for the new .asc files, i also agree with F6FLT and ION to use the standard layout, so i adopted
the Poynt99/F6FLT one for now.
I have setup my real life circuit using the MOSFET and after some adjustments (taking care the signals are equal
in amplitude on the vertical division scales like both 500mA/Div. etc.) it seems that the mean (avg) current through
csr1 and csr2 are the same (also the same as the current DMM in the 12V supply lead).
» i still keep some distance here as i have seen these equal currents before (also with the transistor) but
the next day it had again some offset somehow «.
So it seems to me that there is some "feedthrough" in the transistor during its off time which causes the earlier
seen higher csr2 current.
The final test now would be for Tinman to replace his transistor for a MOSFET and see how his currents values are now.
Video of the testing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUexkxmYJU4
Screenshot: yellow csr1, blue csr2
Regards Itsu
Hi guys,
Have a look at my test. I don't get the same results as Itsu
https://youtu.be/F3C5opU3koY
Regards
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.01.18, 23:40:25
Hi guys,
Have a look at my test. I don't get the same results as Itsu
https://youtu.be/F3C5opU3koY
Regards
Luc
It is good to hear from you Luc.
As we know from past experience,things always stray from the original design,and then more time spent searching for answers as to how the !non original! device is showing what it is showing.
Then the !Eureka! moment come-we have found the source of the extra current ;D.
It would seem that very few listen to,or looked at the pages of data i supplied.
Seems all the extra current comes from the FG C.C
So lets do the math.
In my case,on 12v with a duty cycle of 5%,my circuit draws 36mA average through CSR1. Through CSR2,i have 70- 72mA average of current flowing.
My base resistor is 100 ohms.
What dose the voltage across a 100 ohm resistor have to be to have an average of 70mA flowing through it ?. Now,as we have only a 5% duty cycle,what would the voltage across the 100 ohm resistor have to be during that 5% on time to have an average of 30mA of curtent flowing through it.
As i said in the other thread,i have a feeling that everything i have shown will fall on deaf ears.
So many things overlooked ,as things must conform to known science.
Brad.
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.01.18, 23:40:25
Hi guys,
Have a look at my test. I don't get the same results as Itsu
https://youtu.be/F3C5opU3koY
Regards
Luc
Hi Luc,
thanks for the tests and results.
But the circuit used and tests carried out are not the same as i (we) are doing in the real circuit or the simulations
so results can not be readily compared.
Please allow me some comments:
First the diagram shows the red plus (+) sign at C2 in the wrong position.
Secondly, the yellow input probe was never at that position in our tests, it was always across the source (battery).
Then, your Caps are different (much higher in value), same with the load (we use leds).
Not sure about the switching device, we used a transistor at first, now a MOSFET.
Concerning the measurements, please use "mean" for the currents (so not rms or cyc rms) and many cycles so we can
compare with our results, see my screenshot above.
You can use cyc mean, but that will take only 1 cycle no matter how much cycles you put on the screen and we have seen
that 1 cycle could mislead you here.
Try to use the same vertical / div. setting when comparing currents through csr1 and csr2, i notice it can differ
somewhat when using different settings.
Finally, we use a floating FG which is directly connected across the base / emitter (transistor) or gate / source
(MOSFET) to prevent from any FG currents to being added to csr2.
It did add "SOME" (so not ALL) extra current through csr2.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.19, 04:01:13
It is good to hear from you Luc.
As we know from past experience,things always stray from the original design,and then more time spent searching for answers as to how the !non original! device is showing what it is showing.
Then the !Eureka! moment come-we have found the source of the extra current ;D.
It would seem that very few listen to,or looked at the pages of data i supplied.
Seems all the extra current comes from the FG C.C
So lets do the math.
In my case,on 12v with a duty cycle of 5%,my circuit draws 36mA average through CSR1. Through CSR2,i have 70- 72mA average of current flowing.
My base resistor is 100 ohms.
What dose the voltage across a 100 ohm resistor have to be to have an average of 70mA flowing through it ?. Now,as we have only a 5% duty cycle,what would the voltage across the 100 ohm resistor have to be during that 5% on time to have an average of 30mA of curtent flowing through it.
As i said in the other thread,i have a feeling that everything i have shown will fall on deaf ears.
So many things overlooked ,as things must conform to known science.
Brad.
Hi Brad,
i don't think one can say: "
Seems all the extra current comes from the FG C.C"
I does add SOME current through csr2, but certainly not ALL.
After using a floating FG which is attached across the base / emitter (transistor) or gate / source
(MOSFET) it was eliminated from the csr2 current, but still i had more current through csr2 then csr1.
Finally now after using a MOSFET instead of the transistor, (plus the floating FG) i see equal currents
through csr1 and csr2.
That issue (why more current through csr2 when using a 2N3055 transistor) is still open!
So i invite you to do the same, find a MOSFET, preferrable a IRF530 and use that instead of your transistor.
Your csr1 and csr2 currents should also be equal almost (because of the extra FG current if not floating,
but that would be only a minor contribution).
Set up your scope to measure the both currents using the same vertical/div. setting and avg current over many cycles.
Thanks, Itsu
Thanks for your detailed reply Itsu. Below are my answers to your questions
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 10:25:12
First the diagram shows the red plus (+) sign at C2 in the wrong position.
Thanks for pointing out the schematic error. I have fixed it. I'm sure you know it wasn't that way in my test circuit but good to point out.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 10:25:12
Secondly, the yellow input probe was never at that position in our tests, it was always across the source (battery).
I know the Yellow voltage probe was originally across C1. However, since I also included CSR 3 position in my test to measure both the in and out (flyback) power of the coil it had to be in that position. I'm sure you know that it won't affect the current probe measurement when I moved it from CSR 3 to CSR 2 and then to CSR 1 position. However, I would be please to provide new scope shots with Yellow voltage probe only across C1 for further confirmation.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 10:25:12
Then, your Caps are different (much higher in value), same with the load (we use leds).
Sorry but I was under the impression that this investigation was to understand why two different position of current measurement being CSR 1 (pre C1) and CSR 2 (post C1) are giving different current measurements when an Inductor is pulse? Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
If I haven't misunderstood, then why would cap value or inductive discharge cap load have any influence on why CSR 1 or CSR 2 have different readings.
What I'm trying to demonstrate is, if you find a way to correctly measure both (csr1 & csr2) values then that method should hold up or work with different Cap, Inductor or flyback load values, and not just with specific values, no?
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 10:25:12
Not sure about the switching device, we used a transistor at first, now a MOSFET.
My switch is an Opto Isolated MOSFET
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 10:25:12
Concerning the measurements, please use "mean" for the currents (so not rms or cyc rms) and many cycles so we can
compare with our results, see my screenshot above.
I will also switch the Current Probe to "mean" in the redo test with Voltage probe across C1
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 10:25:12
You can use cyc mean, but that will take only 1 cycle no matter how much cycles you put on the screen and we have seen
that 1 cycle could mislead you here.
My scope does not have "cyc" in its selection menu. I know 1 sample gives false reading. Poynt has tough me well on that.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 10:25:12
Try to use the same vertical / div. setting when comparing currents through csr1 and csr2, i notice it can differ
somewhat when using different settings.
Yes, I know that and why all my multi sample scope had the same vertical / div. settings.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 10:25:12
Finally, we use a floating FG which is directly connected across the base / emitter (transistor) or gate / source
(MOSFET) to prevent from any FG currents to being added to csr2.
It did add "SOME" (so not ALL) extra current through csr2.
My MOSFET switch is Opto Isolated from the FG and used an Arduino as FG since it give me more accurate microsecond pulse width control.
Looking forward in your reply and or corrections.
Regards
Luc
Hi Luc,
thanks for the reply, it clears up some things, sorry if i sounded to picky, not my intention.
Understood about the yellow probe, indeed, it does not matter concerning the currents through the csr's, but as you
also showed the Math traces presenting the power across those csr's, then it matters where you take the input voltage from.
About the caps, in my tests it did matter how big they are, and especially how they relate to each other.
I used both 330uF caps at first, and the csr current traces looked different then when i went over to what
Brad used (10000uF and 470uF).
You might be right that it should not matter, but seeing the different traces i wanted to replicate as close as
Brads situation as possible.
Ok on the switch, so no FG current should creep through into the csr2 current measurements, thats good.
Looking forward to your csr current measurements in mean.
Thanks Itsu
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.19, 04:01:13
As we know from past experience,things always stray from the original design,and then more time spent searching for answers as to how the !non original! device is showing what it is showing.
Then the !Eureka! moment come-we have found the source of the extra current ;D.
It would seem that very few listen to,or looked at the pages of data i supplied.
As i said in the other thread,i have a feeling that everything i have shown will fall on deaf ears.
Brad.
You mean like every time I am asked to come here and look at something, I find that everything I have been instructing through the years; basic, fundamental, subtle, and even some intricacies of power measurement, has either fallen on deaf ears, been misunderstood or misinterpreted, been bastardized, been overlooked or forgotten, and/or old bad habits and erroneous assumptions still abound, and hence the 360 degree process you describe above?
Yep, I get it.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 18:29:43
Hi Luc,
thanks for the reply, it clears up some things, sorry if i sounded to picky, not my intention.
Understood about the yellow probe, indeed, it does not matter concerning the currents through the csr's, but as you
also showed the Math traces presenting the power across those csr's, then it matters where you take the input voltage from.
About the caps, in my tests it did matter how big they are, and especially how they relate to each other.
I used both 330uF caps at first, and the csr current traces looked different then when i went over to what
Brad used (10000uF and 470uF).
You might be right that it should not matter, but seeing the different traces i wanted to replicate as close as
Brads situation as possible.
Ok on the switch, so no FG current should creep through into the csr2 current measurements, thats good.
Looking forward to your csr current measurements in mean.
Thanks Itsu
Thanks Itsu for confirming my understanding is correct and the test I put forward can also be considered.
Please find the below test circuit and scope shots with the changes you requested.
Looking forward to better understanding the huge measurement differences.
Kind regards
Luc
Hi luc,
well, looking at your screenshots, i cannot make much sense out of them.
The signals shown (except for CVR2 Single sample.jpg) do not match the signals in my circuit nor the Sims.
"CVR1 Single" shows an AC like signal which is not present on mine or others, there should be an elevated (positive)
sawtooth like signal there see my post #2 screenshot or Poynt99 his post #3 middle picture.
Also the negative mean value's are strange (they are there, no doubt as the CVR1 multi sample show them)
Could you mention the used capacitors, load resistor and inductor value's (plus coil resistance) so i can simulate?
I see you use 40V as a source.
To be clear you are using NO csr's, you just use your current probe on the CSR positions?
Thanks, Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2019.01.18, 16:27:30
I put him up to it in relation to the these patents (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citedDocuments?CC=FR&NR=2680613A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=19930226&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP) and this thread (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3689.msg71214#msg71214) since using a Spectrum Analyzer to see if there is any RF energy absorption at 45.55Mhz in iron powder is simple and relevant.
The internal 33T field of iron ferromagnetic domains effectively marginalizes the effects of any small ambient fields, removing the need for creating extremely homogeneous external fields, which are typically necessary for NMR experiments.
Also, it is known, that an RF field which is experienced by nuclear spin is enhanced due to the motion of the magnetization of ELECTRON SPINS by the applied RF field thus the NMR signal is enhanced by the same factor. Furthermore, the enhancement factor in domain walls is generally much larger than in domains themselves.
All of the above leads me to believe that some 45.5MHz signal should be observable.
That power levels and impedance matching (RF current coupling to core) need to be better or the typical perpendicular biasing magnetic field will be necessary to see anything. I was hoping the remanence will not leave domains so perfectly randomized, that their signals cancel out.
According to the attached paper, the rotation of domains in iron powder begins at 300mT and ends around 750mT.
Concerning this 45.5Mhz NMR item i found a website for calculating Amidon toroid (iron powdered) responses here:
https://www.changpuak.ch/electronics/amidon_toroid_calculator.php
So did some tests with the calculated 4 turns @ 45Mhz.
Dumping some pictures here for verpies
Calculator input/output data
picture of the 4 turn setup (parallel mode)
response of the TG/SA
We see a nice dip at 45.5Mhz which for me points to a good impedance match in and out of the TG/SA using these 4 turns
Itsu
How does it respond to an axial (perpendicular) DC magnetic field from 300mT to 750mT when zoomed at 45.3MHz-45.7Mhz with a low VBW ?
P.S.
Please sketch the "parallel mode" before someone asks....
Thanks for your reply Itsu.
Please find the replies to your questions below
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 21:01:52
well, looking at your screenshots, i cannot make much sense out of them.
This scope model has never been very good at displaying good data when it's sharp peaks. Works fine with sine waves.
That's why I included the 500us / div. single shots to get a good visual which obviously show tremendous differences between CVR 1 & CVR 2.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 21:01:52
The signals shown (except for CVR2 Single sample.jpg) do not match the signals in my circuit nor the Sims.
Yes, I agree and why I took the time to demonstrate that in certain conditions one can produce even greater differences then Brad showed.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 21:01:52
Also the negative mean value's are strange (they are there, no doubt as the CVR1 multi sample show them)
I think that's related to the scopes inability to obtain good data from the narrow fast rising current pulses
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 21:01:52
Could you mention the used capacitors, load resistor and inductor value's (plus coil resistance) so i can simulate?
I see you use 40V as a source.
Yes, that was all mentioned in the video but here it is re-tested in writing.
40vdc in 100kuf C1, 27kuf C2, 478 Ohms load, 0.250 Ohm Toroid coil @ 100mHQuote from: Itsu on 2019.01.19, 21:01:52
To be clear you are using NO csr's, you just use your current probe on the CSR positions?
Yes, that is correct. I use the same current probe and just move it to each CSR position.
If you wish I can test each position using a 0.1 or 0.01 Ohm 1% metal film resistors. Let me know.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.19, 19:25:49
You mean like every time I am asked to come here and look at something, I find that everything I have been instructing through the years; basic, fundamental, subtle, and even some intricacies of power measurement, has either fallen on deaf ears, been misunderstood or misinterpreted, been bastardized, been overlooked or forgotten, and/or old bad habits and erroneous assumptions still abound, and hence the 360 degree process you describe above?
Yep, I get it.
Well i dont know how you have come about that conclusion,as all my measurements have been done exactly as you have taught.
You have taught that a DMM is very good at averaging out voltage and current,and that is one method i have used.
You have taught that the RMS value is to be used to calculate dissipated power of a resistor of known value,and that is what i have done.
You have taught that the mean or average voltage across a known resistance is used to calculate current flowing through that resistance,and that is what i have done.
But i have also gone above and beyond that,in that these values have been confirmed in many more ways.
All these methods are in the other thread,along with all being on my video's.
Then there is the concern about the base current being the extra value seen through CVR2,when in fact ,that value dose very little to contribute to the extra current value flowing through CVR2.
So no,your methods have not been misunderstood or misinterpreted, been bastardized,or anything else--unless you can point out where i have done so.
Brad
Hi Itsu,
I decided to make a new test using two 1% 0.1 Ohm metal film resistors as CVR 1 & 2
Please find attached schematic and scope shots.
Note the multiple samples still don't give any useful data.
However, it's visually clear on the 500us single scope shot that CVR 1 and 2 are nowhere close.
CVR 2 has about 12 times the height of CVR 1 and a voltage rise on a resistor is squared, so it's more like 4 x 12 = 48 times more power.
I know this doesn't mean OU but why can't we easily explain this large different?
Looking forward to Poynt's or verpies explanation
Regards
Luc
PS. I also included (last pic) a shot with probe 1 @ 50mv voltage per div. (instead of 200mv per div.) to better see the wave of CVR 1
Perhaps the anomalous current in the Transistor Emitter
is due to Transistor Leakage at the moment of turn-off?
At turn-off the Collector to Emitter Voltage should
increase dramatically due to Inductive Kick-back.
Transistors are not capable of instantaneous turn
off on account of charge storage.
Could it be? The Capacitor plays a role as well.
Didn't Verpies suggest this as possibility some time ago?
Quote from: verpies on 2019.01.19, 22:06:49
How does it respond to an axial (perpendicular) DC magnetic field from 300mT to 750mT when zoomed at 45.3MHz-45.7Mhz with a low VBW ?
P.S.
Please sketch the "parallel mode" before someone asks....
I did some manipulating with magnets and you see the dip move, but will try that again later today in that specific range and low Bandwidth (was at 30Khz).
With parallel mode i mean like shown below.
Itsu
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.01.20, 03:56:46
Hi Itsu,
I decided to make a new test using two 1% 0.1 Ohm metal film resistors as CVR 1 & 2
Please find attached schematic and scope shots.
Note the multiple samples still don't give any useful data.
However, it's visually clear on the 500us single scope shot that CVR 1 and 2 are nowhere close.
CVR 2 has about 12 times the height of CVR 1 and a voltage rise on a resistor is squared, so it's more like 4 x 12 = 48 times more power.
I know this doesn't mean OU but why can't we easily explain this large different?
Looking forward to Poynt's or verpies explanation
Regards
Luc
PS. I also included (last pic) a shot with probe 1 @ 50mv voltage per div. (instead of 200mv per div.) to better see the wave of CVR 1
Hi Luc,
Thanks for the data on your circuit.
good idea to use real csr's as i found that current probes generate problems on their own.
I agree however that this data still don't give any usefull data.
The signals still look strange, like the tapering off of the csr2 amplitude in the middle screenshot (DSO2102.jpg)
In 5 cycles (still low for a good average calculation, try 20 or 40 or so) it decreases 40%.
Seems there is a sinewave like signal superimposed on it, could you increase the time base to see if it lateron
increases again or even goes negative?
I saw the same thing (even going negative) on your earlier posted (post #35) screenshot on CSR1 (CVR1 Multi samples.jpg)
Seems you are running at 10Hz (110ms between cycles) so this superimposed (sine?)wave is still much lower, like 1 or 0.5Hz
Anyway, this data is not useable, so i also invite others to give their opinions and meanwhile i will simulate
your circuit to see how that behaves there.
Thanks, Itsu
Quote from: muDped on 2019.01.20, 06:30:16
Perhaps the anomalous current in the Transistor Emitter
is due to Transistor Leakage at the moment of turn-off?
At turn-off the Collector to Emitter Voltage should
increase dramatically due to Inductive Kick-back.
Transistors are not capable of instantaneous turn
off on account of charge storage.
Could it be? The Capacitor plays a role as well.
Didn't Verpies suggest this as possibility some time ago?
muDped,
i think its worth looking into this transistor leakage to get to the bottom of it.
Not sure how to setup things to make it visible if real.
Could it be in the datasheet?
I did not see any info from verpies on Brads thread, but F6FLT (and yourself) mentioned something about it there:
Post #215 from F6FLT:
QuoteWhat is the collector voltage of Q1?
If it is less than the base voltage+0.6v, then the pulses are rectified by the base-collector junction and the mean DC current goes through R7-L1-R6-R5 and can add up in R2.
But i don't think the collector voltage (±12.5V) was ever less then base voltage+0.6v
Anyway, thanks for thinking along.
Itsu
Hi Guys.
Luc, are you pulsing the coil, Steel core and PM as per Brad's motor drive?
Could the tapering be the PM demagnetising?
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 11:24:30
muDped,
But i don't think the collector voltage (±12.5V) was ever less then base voltage+0.6v
Anyway, thanks for thinking along.
Itsu
Collector voltage is 0v + V/drop across CVR2 when transistor is on.
Base voltage is only 3v,as it is 6VPP,so 3v is a negative value.
Brad
Thanks Brad, you could be right, i will take a look at the collector voltage more carefull.
Perhaps F6FLT has something there then.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 11:08:06
good idea to use real csr's as i found that current probes generate problems on their own.
Part of the problem with the scope readings (esp. on csr1) may be because the csr's are 0.1R as opposed to 1R values.
Quote
I agree however that this data still don't give any usefull data.
The signals still look strange, like the tapering off of the csr2 amplitude in the middle screenshot (DSO2102.jpg)
In 5 cycles (still low for a good average calculation, try 20 or 40 or so) it decreases 40%.
Seems there is a sinewave like signal superimposed on it, could you increase the time base to see if it lateron
increases again or even goes negative?
When sine waves appear superimposed on the measured wave form, it is often due to under-sampling by the scope, so it is an artifact generated by the scope.
I think for this particular investigation of avg currents in the csr's, the zoomed-in shots are sufficient to see the disparity between them.
Looking forward to your sim of Luc's version.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.20, 12:12:40
Collector voltage is 0v + V/drop across CVR2 when transistor is on.
Base voltage is only 3v,as it is 6VPP,so 3v is a negative value.
Brad
Could you post a scope shot of your collector voltage? One or two pulses, thanks.
On a side note, what is the DC resistance and inductance of your coil?
author=poynt99 link=topic=3691.msg71360#msg71360 date=1547995675]
QuoteOn a side note, what is the DC resistance and inductance of your coil?
Resistance is 1.9 0hms.
Inductance-no idea,as meter will not give me one.
QuoteCould you post a scope shot of your collector voltage? One or two pulses, thanks.
Yes,see below with attached schematic.
Brad
Hi Itsu and guys,
Since all the previous scope data is useless I decided to modify the input to the circuit to get a better scope reading.
All is described in this video: https://youtu.be/lBq0hV3VW-g
Also, all component values are in the schematic.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.01.20, 15:10:36
Hi Itsu and guys,
Since all the previous scope data is useless I decided to modify the input to the circuit to get a better scope reading.
All is described in this video: https://youtu.be/lBq0hV3VW-g
Also, all component values are in the schematic.
Regards
Luc
Great video Luc
Opto isolated mosfet --well i guess that takes care of that O0'
Brad
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.01.20, 12:10:38
Hi Guys.
Luc, are you pulsing the coil, Steel core and PM as per Brad's motor drive?
Could the tapering be the PM demagnetising?
Cheers Graham.
Hi Graham,
I am pulsing a coil of an off the shelf steel lamination toroid transformer, no magnets involved.
I use a very fast rising narrow pulse that is very accurately adjusted to bring the steel core to full magnetic saturation and instantly shut off.
This combination replicates what Brad was demonstrating but on a larger scale.
No magnets are required and if Brad removed his magnet I'm quite sure it would preform the same way as it did with the magnet.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.20, 15:32:57
Great video Luc
Opto isolated mosfet --well i guess that takes care of that O0'
Brad
It sure does mate ;)
Luc
PS. The MOSFET switch was designed by electronic wizar Jason Owen
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.20, 14:58:57
author=poynt99 link=topic=3691.msg71360#msg71360 date=1547995675]
Resistance is 1.9 0hms.
Inductance-no idea,as meter will not give me one.
Yes,see below with attached schematic.
Brad
What was the FG setting (T and PW)? It looks to me like about a 300us PW.
Here the LTspice sim of Luc his circuit.
Nice to see the sinewave like signal coming back on both csr signals.
So we have to let things settle down to get a good average reading, so i toke a 2s run.
First screenshot is with 200ms runtime (still settling down, so currents are still different).
Second screenshot is with 2s runtime, now things are stable, and current show the same average.
My floating FG will have the same effect i guess as Lucs Opto isolated MOSFET.
I used the 86Hz as we had it, so not your ±10Hz
Itsu
Itsu,
Another better option perhaps is to tell the simulator to ignore the first portion of the run.
It looks like things settle down pretty well after about 400ms, so try changing your .tran statement to the following:
.tran 0 600m 400m 10u
You only need about 200ms worth of data (600m-400m).
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.01.20, 15:10:36
Hi Itsu and guys,
Since all the previous scope data is useless I decided to modify the input to the circuit to get a better scope reading.
All is described in this video: https://youtu.be/lBq0hV3VW-g
Also, all component values are in the schematic.
Regards
Luc
Luc,
still seeing this fluctuating csr2 peaks which seems strange to me, not sure if they are like Poynt says artifacts.
Not sure they will influence the readings.
Concerning the minimum cycles on screen, perhaps you should go in your trigger menu to NORMAL instead of AUTO mode
My scope does not enter Roll (your scan) mode then.
Itsu
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.20, 14:58:57
author=poynt99 link=topic=3691.msg71360#msg71360 date=1547995675]
Resistance is 1.9 0hms.
Inductance-no idea,as meter will not give me one.
Yes,see below with attached schematic.
Brad
Plugging known data into the sim, and matching wave forms, I estimate an inductance of 6.5mH.
What is the total cycle time in that screen shot, and can you confirm the pulse width setting? (I estimate 320us-330us or so)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.20, 16:18:10
Itsu,
Another better option perhaps is to tell the simulator to ignore the first portion of the run.
It looks like things settle down pretty well after about 400ms, so try changing your .tran statement to the following:
.tran 0 600m 400m 10u
You only need about 200ms worth of data (600m-400m).
Ok, changed the run time (tran) to 0 600m 400m 10u
Still seeing the csr1 wobble.
Itsu
That's fine.
The avg's are pretty close still, and you don't need to do such a long run.
In case some may be wondering, the difference in power being dissipated when comparing csr1 and csr2 is not being questioned. The rms current in csr2 is much greater than in csr1, and therefore it is dissipating more power (and will be higher in temperature). The sims clearly show this.
What the sims don't show is a difference in avg current between the two csr's.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 16:30:44
still seeing this fluctuating csr2 peaks which seems strange to me, not sure if they are like Poynt says artifacts.
Not sure they will influence the readings.
What I'll do is lower the input voltage and increase the on time. That should give the scope more time to provide stable data. However, keep in mind we are now changing the dynamics of the inductors effects just to accommodate the scopes inabilities to provide good data. So to me that would not be conclusive as to what is taking place using a narrow fast rising current pulse. A bit like saying the software simulation is real.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 16:30:44
Concerning the minimum cycles on screen, perhaps you should go in your trigger menu to NORMAL instead of AUTO mode
My scope does not enter Roll (your scan) mode then.
Please find the below shots with the trigger set to NORMAL instead of AUTO mode.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.20, 16:54:02
In case some may be wondering, the difference in power being dissipated when comparing csr1 and csr2 is not being questioned. The rms current in csr2 is much greater than in csr1, and therefore it is dissipating more power (and will be higher in temperature). The sims clearly show this.
What the sims don't show is a difference in avg current between the two csr's.
Thanks poynt for making that clear.
Now that I know what we are focused on I will try my best to provide that.
Here is a live video with more samples using Normal trigger mode: https://youtu.be/0byRTPYJ9f8
Regards
Luc
Luc,
No, its not the meaning to change anything for the sake of correct measurements.
We need accurate data on the signals involved.
What are your FG (arduino) timings? I see they changed from 10Hz to 30Hz now?
What was the on time, are they the same as Brad used 86Hz @ 5% ontime?
looking at your csr1 signal in your DSCO2106.jpg screenshot, its almost non existing compared to csr2.
So i think there is a problem for the scope to handle it.
Could you try like poynt said use 1 Ohm csr's?.
Or crank up the vertical amplitude on csr1 alone and measure that across many cycles.
So the NORMAL mode allowed you to use more cycles, thats good.
I still see the abnormal fluctuation of the csr2 amplitude, this is not right.
You are triggering on the almost non existing csr1 signal, could you change that to the csr2 signal,
perhaps that stabilizes that fluctuation.
Sorry for the questions etc., but we should be able to match the sim signals and data.
Itsu
Forget that last question, i see you already did that (trigger on csr2) in screenshot DSC02103 in your post #52
Itsu
Luc,
look at the screenshot below where you used many cycles (not samples).
The amplitude of the csr2 signal varies from 200mV till almost 1.5V in 7 cycles.
This cannot be thru, so there must be something wrong, the difference get worse the more cycles you put up,
so i think its something with the scopes ability to handle this.
Itsu
I changed C1 from 100,000uf to 3,900uf to allow a faster response between the power supply and CVR1 in hopes to get a better scope average reading.
Even though that has made CVR1's wave much more visible on the scope, the averaging is still not even.
Have a look at it live: https://youtu.be/q3Q9aGyYHNQ
Regards
Luc
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 18:04:28
No, its not the meaning to change anything for the sake of correct measurements.
We need accurate data on the signals involved.
Yes I understand, it just feels like we need to change things a little too much but I know it has to be done.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 18:04:28
What are your FG (arduino) timings? I see they changed from 10Hz to 30Hz now?
What was the on time, are they the same as Brad used 86Hz @ 5% ontime?
I didn't change it, it's just the scope doing that, so I probed the Arduino output and looks to be at 30.45Hz about 7.5ms on time and 25ms off time. See shot below. So it's not the same as Brad. I could bring it up to that frequency but the input and output would be in the high 40 watt range. I don't think that's needed to study this.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 18:04:28
looking at your csr1 signal in your DSCO2106.jpg screenshot, its almost non existing compared to csr2.
So i think there is a problem for the scope to handle it.
Could you try like poynt said use 1 Ohm csr's?.
A 1 Ohm CSR on the pulse side would affect the Inductors (0.25 Ohms) performance which would be doing what you said we won't do. However, my pi filter I use to accurately measure the input has a precision 1 Ohm resistor between the two pi caps. I can place probe 1 there and see what results that gives.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 18:04:28
Or crank up the vertical amplitude on csr1 alone and measure that across many cycles.
That I can try. So basically measure each separately and maximize the wave size of each so the scope has enough surface area of each.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.01.20, 18:31:59
I changed C1 from 100,000uf to 3,900uf to allow a faster response between the power supply and CVR1 in hopes to get a better scope average reading.
Even though that has made CVR1's wave much more visible on the scope, the averaging is still not even.
Have a look at it live: https://youtu.be/q3Q9aGyYHNQ
Regards
Luc
Thanks Luc,
so we have 270 Ohm load resistor, 3900uF for C1 and still 27000uF for C2
Still running at 30Hz with ?? ontime.
The video shows still something is not right.
The input current you measure with your DMM shows 402mA (average).
The CSR2 with many cycles (plus the artifacts) show average (mean) 412mA (41.2/0.1) which is close, so good.
But csr1 (which should also be the same as your DMM (and csr2)) shows 97.9mA (9.97/0.1).
You have to find out why csr1 is not giving the same average current as the DMM, you are the only one knowing your setup.
picture 1 is the DMM average input current
picture 2 the csr2 average current across a 0.1 Ohm resistor
Itsu
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.01.20, 19:35:26
Yes I understand, it just feels like we need to change things a little too much but I know it has to be done.
I didn't change it, it's just the scope doing that, so I probed the Arduino output and looks to be at 30.45Hz about 7.5ms on time and 25ms off time. See shot below. So it's not the same as Brad. I could bring it up to that frequency but the input and output would be in the high 40 watt range. I don't think that's needed to study this.
A 1 Ohm CSR on the pulse side would affect the Inductors (0.25 Ohms) performance which would be doing what you said we won't do. However, my pi filter I use to accurately measure the input has a precision 1 Ohm resistor between the two pi caps. I can place probe 1 there and see what results that gives.
That I can try. So basically measure each separately and maximize the wave size of each so the scope has enough surface area of each.
Regards
Luc
Luc,
Ok, you are running 30Hz @ 7.5ms on time = 25% on time.
In your post #28, #35 and #41 screenshots, the time between 2 peaks is about 110ms (10Hz) and in the lower right
corner it also shows 10Hz.
In your post #51 and further screenshots it shows about 33ms between 2 peaks, so 30Hz, also shown in the lower right corner.
So you are telling me the scope is doing that?
itsu
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.20, 14:47:55
Could you post a scope shot of your collector voltage? One or two pulses, thanks.
On a side note, what is the DC resistance and inductance of your coil?
Poynt99,
here some scopeshots of my 2N3055 transistor setup
Coil is 2.7mH @ 2.6 Ohm
screenshots show Collector / emitter signals (single and multiple) and FG input (base / collector) signals (single and multiple)
Basically 86Hz with 5% on time.
Itsu
Zooming in on the bottom part of the transistor Q1 on time collector signal.
The between horizontal cursors part is the base voltage (1V) plus 0.6V (1.6V).
What did F6FLT say:
Quote
What is the collector voltage of Q1?
If it is less than the base voltage+0.6v, then the pulses are rectified by the base-collector junction and the mean DC current goes through R7-L1-R6-R5 and can add up in R2.
That bottom part is less then the "base voltage+0.6v", so "then the pulses are rectified by the base-collector
junction and the mean DC current goes through R7-L1-R6-R5 and can add up in R2".
(R7, R6 and R5 were some dummy 0.1 csr resistors for current measurements in the simulation, so are not really existing).
So how can we translate this bottom 1.6V rectified base-collector part to an amount of current adding up in csr2? :o
Itsu
Yes Itsu, the scope shows 10Hz even if it's not the exact frequency. My earlier post I was at a lower frequency but then I reduced the off time to get more sample for better averaging so that increased the frequency to above 30Hz. I explained that in my video.
Here's another test done to get a better averaging. CVR1 is 1 Ohm and CVR2 is 0.1 Ohm and went back to C1 being 100kuf
https://youtu.be/NbK5V93uOBI
Regards
Luc
Quote from: verpies on 2019.01.19, 22:06:49
How does it respond to an axial (perpendicular) DC magnetic field from 300mT to 750mT when zoomed at 45.3MHz-45.7Mhz with a low VBW ?
P.S.
Please sketch the "parallel mode" before someone asks....
Manipulating 2 ceramic magnets around the toroid has a huge influence when zoomed in at 45.3MHz-45.7Mhz and low VBW
in that it is impossible to get a stable view.
Going back to 40 - 50Mhz even is hard as approaching the toroid with 1 magnet deepens the dip and moves it up frequency
(47Mhz) untill it flattens out again when touching the toroid.
In this situation (magnets attached to the toroid) even pointing to the toroid with my finger makes it deepen the dip
and moving it up frequency, so very unstable.
Need to do some testing to find a stable view.
Itsu
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.20, 15:36:44
What was the FG setting (T and PW)? It looks to me like about a 300us PW.
FG is set at 6V/PP,at 50Hz,with 5% duty cycle.
A diode is also used on the positive side of the FG,so as only the forward 3v(minus diode drop) triggers the transistor.
Brad
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 21:51:03
Going back to 40 - 50Mhz even is hard as approaching the toroid with 1 magnet deepens the dip and moves it up frequency
(47Mhz)
That does not surprise me much because the external perpendicular field should decrease the effective permeability of the core.
The frequency upshift can be dealt with by adding a cap or an extra turn. In the end, the operation should be in a magnet sandwich anyway.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 21:51:03
until it flattens out again when touching the toroid.
What do you mean? The dip disappears completely ?
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 21:51:03
In this situation (magnets attached to the toroid) even pointing to the toroid with my finger makes it deepen the dip
and moving it up frequency, so very unstable.
Now, the finger worries me because it cannot affect the core's permeability. It can affect the winding capaciively and we really do not want that.
Quote from: verpies on 2019.01.21, 09:25:48
That does not surprise me much because the external perpendicular field should decrease the effective permeability of the core.
The frequency upshift can be dealt with by adding a cap or an extra turn. In the end, the operation should be in a magnet sandwich anyway.
What do you mean? The dip disappears completely ?
Now, the finger worries me because it cannot affect the core's permeability. It can affect the winding capaciively and we really do not want that.
QuoteWhat do you mean? The dip disappears completely ?
no, it does not disappear, it comes back from the deeper dip during magnet approach to the normal (no magnet) dip state
QuoteNow, the finger worries me because it cannot affect the core's permeability. It can affect the winding capaciively and we really do not want that.
I think the finger pointing with magnets attached (deeper dip) is the same as the deeper dip when approaching with
the magnet as i also have my finger/hand close, so yes i think too that its (deeper dip) caused by some capacitance
effect instead of caused by the magnetic field.
I will see if i can approach the magnet using a wooden stick or so.
Itsu
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.01.20, 21:48:19
Yes Itsu, the scope shows 10Hz even if it's not the exact frequency. My earlier post I was at a lower frequency but then I reduced the off time to get more sample for better averaging so that increased the frequency to above 30Hz. I explained that in my video.
Here's another test done to get a better averaging. CVR1 is 1 Ohm and CVR2 is 0.1 Ohm and went back to C1 being 100kuf
https://youtu.be/NbK5V93uOBI
Regards
Luc
Thanks Luc, coming close.
could you please keep a DMM (in current mode) next to csr1?
It will give the correct average input current and it should compare with csr1.
As long as those 2 are not the same, there is something wrong with csr1 or how you (scope) measure it.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.21, 09:46:00
Thanks Luc, coming close.
could you please keep a DMM (in current mode) next to csr1?
It will give the correct average input current and it should compare with csr1.
As long as those 2 are not the same, there is something wrong with csr1 or how you (scope) measure it.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Eventually I was able to get both CSR's to average using the last test setup but only by changing the circuit frequency down to 20Hz or up to 40Hz. However, at 30Hz it does what I demonstrated in my last video.
It's like the scope data only works well with even frequencies :-\
Anyways, looks like averaging is possible to achieve if you play around with the measuring and circuit conditions.
Something new learned.
BTW, I noticed you're also working on tests that involve magnets and coils?
I'm asking because I have an ferrite toroid coil I wound and pulse that when a ferrite magnet of a certain size is positioned at a certain location the input power goes down and the inductive discharge (flyback) power goes up. Don't quite understand why the input power goes down because usually a magnet will lower the inductance of a ferrite coil which would cause more current draw ???
Is that something you may be interested in seeing in your topic or should I start another topic?
Regards
Luc
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 20:41:17
Poynt99,
here some scopeshots of my 2N3055 transistor setup
Coil is 2.7mH @ 2.6 Ohm
screenshots show Collector / emitter signals (single and multiple) and FG input (base / collector) signals (single and multiple)
Basically 86Hz with 5% on time.
Itsu
Thanks Itsu.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.20, 21:16:48
Zooming in on the bottom part of the transistor Q1 on time collector signal.
The between horizontal cursors part is the base voltage (1V) plus 0.6V (1.6V).
What did F6FLT say:
That bottom part is less then the "base voltage+0.6v", so "then the pulses are rectified by the base-collector
junction and the mean DC current goes through R7-L1-R6-R5 and can add up in R2".
(R7, R6 and R5 were some dummy 0.1 csr resistors for current measurements in the simulation, so are not really existing).
So how can we translate this bottom 1.6V rectified base-collector part to an amount of current adding up in csr2? :o
Itsu
Although there is a fwd bias of the b-c junction during the ON time, there is negligible contribution of current from the base, so I think it can mostly be ignored.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.20, 23:07:42
FG is set at 6V/PP,at 50Hz,with 5% duty cycle.
A diode is also used on the positive side of the FG,so as only the forward 3v(minus diode drop) triggers the transistor.
Brad
Can you confirm this by looking at the scope shot? Again, I see a pulse width of about 320us or so. At your stated 50Hz with a 5% duty cycle, that translates to a pulse width of 1ms, which is 3x longer than what the scope shot indicates.
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.01.21, 15:39:34
Hi Itsu,
Eventually I was able to get both CSR's to average using the last test setup but only by changing the circuit frequency down to 20Hz or up to 40Hz. However, at 30Hz it does what I demonstrated in my last video.
It's like the scope data only works well with even frequencies :-\
Anyways, looks like averaging is possible to achieve if you play around with the measuring and circuit conditions.
Something new learned.
Luc, could you please clarify the above? Are you saying that with certain settings the two csr avg currents do in fact equal?
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.01.21, 15:39:34
Hi Itsu,
Eventually I was able to get both CSR's to average using the last test setup but only by changing the circuit frequency down to 20Hz or up to 40Hz. However, at 30Hz it does what I demonstrated in my last video.
It's like the scope data only works well with even frequencies :-\
Anyways, looks like averaging is possible to achieve if you play around with the measuring and circuit conditions.
Something new learned.
BTW, I noticed you're also working on tests that involve magnets and coils?
I'm asking because I have an ferrite toroid coil I wound and pulse that when a ferrite magnet of a certain size is positioned at a certain location the input power goes down and the inductive discharge (flyback) power goes up. Don't quite understand why the input power goes down because usually a magnet will lower the inductance of a ferrite coil which would cause more current draw ???
Is that something you may be interested in seeing in your topic or should I start another topic?
Regards
Luc
Hi Luc,
ok good to hear that you also managed to get the csr currents averaged evenly.
I know that measurements are sometimes very cumbersome and sometimes very easy, especially when your scope
is not cooperating (it probably does what it suppose to do, but we interpret it wrongly).
I do work with verpies and others on some 45Mhz NMR (iron) experiments using a iron powdered toroid which also involve
the use of magnets.
But hearing your experiments involve ferrite i don't think it is similar, so i would advice you to
open another Topic as it does sound interesting.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.21, 15:47:19
Although there is a fwd bias of the b-c junction during the ON time, there is negligible contribution of current from the base, so I think it can mostly be ignored.
Ok, thanks.
here a screenshot when the load was reduced from 4 powerleds to 1.
Purple is collector / emitter voltage
blue is base / emitter voltage
Itsu
O0
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.21, 16:01:45
Luc, could you please clarify the above? Are you saying that with certain settings the two csr avg currents do in fact equal?
Yes, at 20Hz or 40Hz they both equal out using my last test circuit but at 30Hz CSR1 is a little less then half the average value of CSR2 using the same circuit as demonstrated in my last video.
Added: To change the frequency all I did is change the off time, increased it for a lower frequency and decreased it for a higher frequency. The on time always stayed the same.
Regards
Luc
Thanks Luc.
Hmm, that is very interesting!
If you have an extra meter, could you place it across CSR2 in DC voltage mode, and see what the average readings are at various frequencies (and see how they compare with the scope, and with CSR1)?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.21, 16:36:59
Thanks Luc.
Hmm, that is very interesting!
If you have an extra meter, could you place it across CSR2 in DC voltage mode, and see what the average readings are at various frequencies (and see how they compare with the scope, and with CSR1)?
Okay, I'll post a video if anything looks interesting otherwise I'll report the results.
Also, note that I added to my previous post after you read it.
Regards
Luc
Yup, and thanks. Still very interesting! ;)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.21, 16:36:59
Thanks Luc.
Hmm, that is very interesting!
If you have an extra meter, could you place it across CSR2 in DC voltage mode, and see what the average readings are at various frequencies (and see how they compare with the scope, and with CSR1)?
Okay, the problem is definitely this 4 channel scope data is unreliable. It reads fine in certain pulse condition but make one small change (like pulse width) and it all goes out. However, the Fluke digital meter measured a perfectly equal average value across each CSR to any circuit pulse or frequency change even though CSR2 is ten times smaller @ 0.1 Ohms.
It's sad when a scope can't even measure the correct average value across a resister. I guess this scope model is only good for having 4 channels and looking at waves. Just forget about the data.
Here's a video if you want to see: https://youtu.be/TD6kfI3lz24
The joys of learning something new every day.
I'm done with this one.
Thanks Itsu and Poynt for the help in solving this.
Regards
Luc
BTW, if interested, here's the video I recorded before making a small change (pulse width) showing both CSR average correctly. Just keep in mind CSR1 data is divided by 10.
https://youtu.be/3DChv6La7MQ
Thanks Luc.
I might suggest you look for a way to change the range on the Fluke 289, to mV perhaps? Some meters have a 200mV range, or something similar.
It won't change what you found, but it is better for future measurements to try and maximize the range on the meter when we can, just like on the scope.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.21, 18:43:40
Thanks Luc.
I might suggest you look for a way to change the range on the Fluke 289, to mV perhaps? Some meters have a 200mV range, or something similar.
It won't change what you found, but it is better for future measurements to try and maximize the range on the meter when we can, just like on the scope.
Thanks Poynt,
The meter definitely has a 200mv range but I thought it would look better not having so many digits changing on the display. A kept it simple thing if it proves the point.
I agree, it can be used to measure very accurately and is the instrument used the pi filter you recommended me to built some 15 years ago (seen in my videos) to accurately measure power in a DC pulsed circuit. It's never fail me.
Regards
Luc
I understand. ;)
It's just that the picky/ocd techie guys (like myself) get all squeamish when they see so few significant digits in a measurement, especially when it can be so easily remedied!
And btw, I don't think your scope is in any worse shape than anyone else's, there just might be some weird idiosyncrasy we have yet to discover with them. Let's wait and see what Itsu and Brad report on their tests with the meter on CSR2.
Glad to hear the input meter and filtering setup is still working for you.
DMM across csr2 and csr1 compared to my el cheapo DMM measuring current in the 12V supply lead.
They are in very close agreement :)
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPS5ZtxStF0
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.21, 09:39:46
no, it does not disappear, it comes back from the deeper dip during magnet approach to the normal (no magnet) dip state
I think the finger pointing with magnets attached (deeper dip) is the same as the deeper dip when approaching with
the magnet as i also have my finger/hand close, so yes i think too that its (deeper dip) caused by some capacitance
effect instead of caused by the magnetic field.
I will see if i can approach the magnet using a wooden stick or so.
Itsu
Here a video of the 40 - 50Mhz sweep with the matching dip.
See how sensitive the dip is to movement of the hand nearby.
It is hard this way to look for an even smaller dip when narrowing the frequency sweep range.
Below a drawing on how the SA is set up.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmMmS-SVrHs
I was looking into the "trigger in" backpanel plug, but there is very little mentioned in the users guide.
So i doubt it can be used for eleborate sequencing.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.21, 21:07:43
DMM across csr2 and csr1 compared to my el cheapo DMM measuring current in the 12V supply lead.
They are in very close agreement :)
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPS5ZtxStF0
Itsu
Thanks Itsu!
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.21, 15:58:41
Can you confirm this by looking at the scope shot? Again, I see a pulse width of about 320us or so. At your stated 50Hz with a 5% duty cycle, that translates to a pulse width of 1ms, which is 3x longer than what the scope shot indicates.
Mmm
Well i will have to double check that,as like you say,the scope seems to show a pulse width that is to short.
All my tests were carried out at 50 Hz,so im not sure what is going on here.
I will have another look tonight.
I may have changed the pulse width in this particular test,for what reason ?, i do not know. It was to show the voltage across the coil during the on time,which it dose.
Brad
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.21, 21:10:14
Here a video of the 40 - 50Mhz sweep with the matching dip.
See how sensitive the dip is to movement of the hand nearby.
@Poynt99
What would you suggest to obtain the maximum amplitude of magnetic flux variations in the core (max. ΔΦ or max. Δ ampturns) at the target frequency of 45.525MHz from the current provided by the Tracking Generator in Itsu's Spectrum Analyzer ?
Wouldn't the maximum energy transfer from the TG to the core manifest itself as a peak on the display?
Brad,
Could the reason you changed the pulse width (and possibly also period T) be because you moved up to a 24V supply for this test?
Quote from: verpies on 2019.01.21, 23:37:51
@Poynt99
What would you suggest to obtain the maximum amplitude of magnetic flux variations in the core (max. ΔΦ or max. Δ ampturns) at the target frequency of 45.525MHz from the current provided by the Tracking Generator in Itsu's Spectrum Analyzer ?
I have not been following, so I'm going to make a couple suggestions based on my limited knowledge of NMR, the apparent goal, and what has been done so far (I did go back to read the threads and watch Itsu's videos). If the following is idiotic, don't be too harsh on me :-[
Since Itsu is now using a transformer, and since a parallel LC tank will maximize current at resonance, and current (amp-turns) is what is required to vary core flux, I would suggest trying to tune either the primary alone (TG side), or both sides, to the target frequency. I would suggest trying to utilize an adjustable air capacitor, but you may need to increase your no. of turns (increase L) to get in range and achieve 45.5MHz resonance.
As shown in Itsu's videos, external parasitic capacitance is messing with the existing tuning (existing in the sense that inter-winding capacitance, inductance, and possibly leakage inductance is contributing), and as such I would suggest that the apparatus be placed in an electrostatic shield. The particular construction of RF duplexer filters (which contain variable capacitors and inductors) is a testament to the importance of electrostatic shielding at these frequencies (see pic).
Another suggestion for your experiment would be to dispense with the ceramic magnets and instead combine a DC source and the TG source such that you can manipulate the static magnetic field in a controlled manner (whilst shielded within the electrostatic shield). I would apply the DC source to both the primary and secondary. Isolation between the DC source and the TG/SA output/input could be achieved by capacitive coupling to/from the TG/SA, and inductive coupling of the DC source.
Quote
Wouldn't the maximum energy transfer from the TG to the core manifest itself as a peak on the display?
I would think so, but I don't know what "happens" to the core if/when it reaches NMR.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.22, 00:09:21
Brad,
Could the reason you changed the pulse width (and possibly also period T) be because you moved up to a 24V supply for this test?
No
Even at 24 volts,the pulse width remained the same.
Added-i will put a chanel across the base as well,as that should line up with voltage trace across the coil.
Brad
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.22, 00:09:21
Brad,
Could the reason you changed the pulse width (and possibly also period T) be because you moved up to a 24V supply for this test?
Ok,it would seem that i have to of had the FG set to 1% duty cycle.
After looking at it again today,it would seem that i reduced the on time to 1% so as the current stopped flowing just before the current trace flattened out,as at 2% duty cycle,the current peaks and flattens out.
At 3% duty cycle,the inductive kickback trace-thus energy dose not change,but the input is increased to the system.
So maybe i was looking at what the highest efficiency duty cycle was ?.
Anyway,about using these flash scopes to make power measurements C.C
Seems i can select just how much power my system is using simply by adjusting the trigger position--what good is that >:(
Below are 5 scope shots,where nothing at all was changed except the trigger position--as noted with the red dot next to it. As i raise the trigger position,my power input increases,and i dont mean by a small amount.
We can go from 790mW's input to 1.57watts input simply by raising the trigger level-->what good is this? ???
Now,i can get a similar effect by increasing the number of samples on the screen,where the least amount of samples (5 on the screen) seems to be where the current reads closest to that of the DMMs current reading,which i know is correct. But increasing the samples as most say is best,increases the current value way above that of the actual current value.
So might as well throw the scope in the bin,and stick to the DMMs for accurate power measurements.as the scope is garbage like this.
Brad
OK makes sense, as that is what I thought was the reason you would have changed the PW (as I stated earlier).
In regards to the trigger level changing your measurements, are you on slope trigger or edge trigger mode? From the symbol it looks like you are in Slope mode. Change it to Edge mode and see if that cures the problem.
Also, try the trigger level at "0" (press the trigger knob in?), or slightly above 0.
If you can't obtain a good clean trigger this way, you could scope the FG output and trigger off that channel (or even better, pipe the FG signal or "trigger out" into the scope's ext. trigger port). I think the general rule is to try and keep the trigger level as close to "0" as possible when making amplitude measurements. If all you are doing is displaying a wave form, the trigger level is less critical.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.22, 10:11:42
Ok,it would seem that i have to of had the FG set to 1% duty cycle.
After looking at it again today,it would seem that i reduced the on time to 1% so as the current stopped flowing just before the current trace flattened out,as at 2% duty cycle,the current peaks and flattens out.
At 3% duty cycle,the inductive kickback trace-thus energy dose not change,but the input is increased to the system.
So maybe i was looking at what the highest efficiency duty cycle was ?.
Anyway,about using these flash scopes to make power measurements C.C
Seems i can select just how much power my system is using simply by adjusting the trigger position--what good is that >:(
Below are 5 scope shots,where nothing at all was changed except the trigger position--as noted with the red dot next to it. As i raise the trigger position,my power input increases,and i dont mean by a small amount.
We can go from 790mW's input to 1.57watts input simply by raising the trigger level-->what good is this? ???
Now,i can get a similar effect by increasing the number of samples on the screen,where the least amount of samples (5 on the screen) seems to be where the current reads closest to that of the DMMs current reading,which i know is correct. But increasing the samples as most say is best,increases the current value way above that of the actual current value.
So might as well throw the scope in the bin,and stick to the DMMs for accurate power measurements.as the scope is garbage like this.
Brad
Brad,
IMO, the problem lies in the horizontal resolution of 10MSa/s combined with the number of pulses and the narrow pulse width. In your example, very few actual samples are taken during the pulse "on" time thus affecting accuracy big time. With these sampling scopes averaging the reading over many cycles, only one complete cycle is needed in view and then the horizontal sampling accuracy is greatly improved. This is evidenced in your case by a lesser number of pulses measuring closer to your DMM readings.
Regards,
Pm
Very few samples? I'm not so sure I'm in agreement partzman.
At 10Ms/s, the scope is acquiring 10k samples per 1ms.
Since Brad's PW is 1ms wide, there are 10k samples acquired per pulse for the scope to work with and resolve the computations. That is a sample every 100ns.
In my opinion that is more than sufficient sampling in this case.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.22, 16:53:21
Very few samples? I'm not so sure I'm in agreement partzman.
At 10Ms/s, the scope is acquiring 10k samples per 1ms.
Since Brad's PW is 1ms wide, there are 10k samples acquired per pulse for the scope to work with and resolve the computations. That is a sample every 100ns.
In my opinion that is more than sufficient sampling in this case.
Yes, I agree with you as I didn't do a calculation with the numbers. However, the results do appear to suffer from horizontal resolution so I would be curious what the measurements would be with just one sample in view for comparison.
Regards,
Pm
I think that provided exactly one full cycle is displayed, it should be very close to the same result.
;)
Itsu,
Since Brad has, in his own way, acknowledged that the mystery of the unequal average csr currents has been solved, I wanted to say thanks for helping find the truth, and for the courage to use circuit simulation even in the frowning face of chronic resistance to the tool. I think we all have sims to thank for helping resolve yet another FE "mystery". I'm glad you've rediscovered and brought forward this valuable tool.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.23, 04:31:10
Itsu,
Since Brad has, in his own way, acknowledged that the mystery of the unequal average csr currents has been solved, I wanted to say thanks for helping find the truth, and for the courage to use circuit simulation even in the frowning face of chronic resistance to the tool. I think we all have sims to thank for helping resolve yet another FE "mystery". I'm glad you've rediscovered and brought forward this valuable tool.
.99
I did no such thing.
As i have stated many times,the scope was only one measurement method. Also,if the scope was making an error,then that error would exist across both CVR measurements.
Regarding sims--was a PM used as the core material ?
Was that core surrounded by a steel tube with a slit lengthwise ?
Was the sim simulating my coils geometry?, if not,then should we expect the sim to give us the correct outcome ?
Where do you remember seeing a coil of such design being used?
What were the results clearly given by that device that used such a coil configuration?
As i said to Chet in a private message--all will be dismissed--all will fall on deaf ears.
The extra current flowing through CVR2 is still yet to be explained.
An exact replica of my coils geometry is yet to be tested.
Once again,a pushbike has been used to work out why an F16 flies as fast as it dose.
But anyway--such is life.
Brad
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.23, 04:31:10
... the courage to use circuit simulation even in the frowning face of chronic resistance to the tool...
Hi poynt99
Just a comment by the way. At least 90% of what is reported in the field of free energy is science fiction invented by unqualified people on conventional phenomena that can be perfectly explained by current theories. Simulations and models cannot show overunity, but if they show what we observe, then no exotic theories are needed to explain it. They are essential tools even in the search for the unknown. Would most of us not agree with that?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.23, 04:31:10
Itsu,
Since Brad has, in his own way, acknowledged that the mystery of the unequal average csr currents has been solved, I wanted to say thanks for helping find the truth, and for the courage to use circuit simulation even in the frowning face of chronic resistance to the tool. I think we all have sims to thank for helping resolve yet another FE "mystery". I'm glad you've rediscovered and brought forward this valuable tool.
.99
Thanks poynt,
i find this tool indeed very valuable as it quickly shows how things look normally electronics wise..
One can sift out very quickly if something reported is abnormal or not.
The learning curcve is way lower then i expected and the web is full of tutorials.
It cannot simulate all things like specially created magnet cored coils etc., but one can use common sense
and simulate these specially created coils by adjusting the resistance, inductance, etc. to get closer to the real thing.
I am in the process of doing so now with Luc his new thread
Thanks for your help on the Sim and in this thread.
Itsu
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.22, 01:49:24
I have not been following, so I'm going to make a couple suggestions based on my limited knowledge of NMR, the apparent goal, and what has been done so far (I did go back to read the threads and watch Itsu's videos). If the following is idiotic, don't be too harsh on me :-[
Those were pretty good suggestions. I liked the idea of tuning the windings separately. What do you think of maximizing the current through a CSR connected in series with one winding?
I didn't like the idea of combining DC and RF in one winding because in general NMR likes the DC field to be perpendicular to the RF field. It is a geometric issue that necessitates a separate DC winding (or a big magnet).
NMR likes the DC field to be very homogeneous, too, but that is less important in solid iron because its internal -33T field swamps whatever you can throw at it from outside.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.22, 01:49:24
I would think so, but I don't know what "happens" to the core if/when it reaches NMR.
On a scope it looks like this:
During the T1 period, the matter absorbs the RF energy of very specific frequency (±100kHz). This absorption loads and decreases the amplitude of the Tx generator, which the receiver can sense.
During the T2 period, after the Tx generator is turned off, the matter re-radiates this RF energy back.
Generally T2<T1.
The RF Envelopes of the received signals have the same shapes as a charging and subsequently discharging capacitor.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=30649)
Note that the absorption during T1 causes a dip on the Spectrum Analyzer and the re-radiation during T2 causes a peak at the same frequency. If the dip/peak are not separated somehow, they can cancel each other on the spectrogram.
The above leads me to another question for you: What would be your idea for separating them during measurement?
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.23, 04:56:20
I did no such thing.
In one of your recent posts you said something to the effect "...I know the meters are right...", and since you have yet to present any direct reference to a meter in DC voltage mode across your CSR2 to confirm the avg current comparison to CSR1, I assumed you had already done that and implied (by the statement above) that they are in agreement. If you have not yet checked CSR2 with a DMM, why not? (Luc and Itsu have, and they are in agreement).
Quote
The extra current flowing through CVR2 is still yet to be explained.
Since AVG and RMS currents have been discussed throughout these two threads, you need to be specific as to which you are referring when making statements such as the above. I have already stated that the RMS current is greater in CSR2, that is not in dispute. If you are still espousing that the AVG current in CSR2 is greater than in CSR1, then please post a video where you measure both with a DMM.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.23, 13:35:22
In one of your recent posts you said something to the effect "...I know the meters are right...", and since you have yet to present any direct reference to a meter in DC voltage mode across your CSR2 to confirm the avg current comparison to CSR1, I assumed you had already done that and implied (by the statement above) that they are in agreement. If you have not yet checked CSR2 with a DMM, why not? (Luc and Itsu have, and they are in agreement).
Since AVG and RMS currents have been discussed throughout these two threads, you need to be specific as to which you are referring when making statements such as the above. I have already stated that the RMS current is greater in CSR2, that is not in dispute. If you are still espousing that the AVG current in CSR2 is greater than in CSR1, then please post a video where you measure both with a DMM.
Ok,well im guessing you either missed some post's and video's,or just choose to ignore them.
So once again,below is a couple of scope shots ,with circuit and scope probe positions.
Then there is one of my video's that show what every other tests i have done have shown--including a DMM reading the average voltage across each CVR.
So how can a DC motor with a cap across it be fooled?
I mistakenly say that C1 is receiving the kickback from the coil,but it dose not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSODFYCqQH8
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.23, 14:05:46
Ok,well im guessing you either missed some post's and video's,or just choose to ignore them.
So once again,below is a couple of scope shots ,with circuit and scope probe positions.
Then there is one of my video's that show what every other tests i have done have shown--including a DMM reading the average voltage across each CVR.
So how can a DC motor with a cap across it be fooled?
I mistakenly say that C1 is receiving the kickback from the coil,but it dose not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSODFYCqQH8
The video you linked above (which I have watched 3 times) does not demonstrate the two CSR's being measured with a DMM.
Is a small DC motor in parallel with a capacitor equal to a resistor? Please dispense with the hopeful assumptions for a moment and demonstrate on video a measurement of both
CSR's with
DMMs.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.23, 15:22:42
The video you linked above (which I have watched 3 times) does not demonstrate the two CSR's being measured with a DMM.
Is a small DC motor in parallel with a capacitor equal to a resistor? Please dispense with the hopeful assumptions for a moment and demonstrate on video a measurement of both CSR's with DMMs.
It takes current to charge a cap,so what dose it mean if the cap in CSR2 position is charging faster and to a higher potential to that of the cap in the CSR1 position?
The two motors are identical,and are driven by the energy received by each cap.
It would seem that you think that the DMM test is going to show something different to that of every other test done.
It would also seem that you think i have not yet done this--used the DMM to measure the average voltage across each CSR, when in fact i carry out that very test before the scope is even turned on.
But as you seek proof beyond that which has already been provided,then so be it.
Brad
author=poynt99 link=topic=3691.msg71492#msg71492 date=1548250522]
QuoteI have already stated that the RMS current is greater in CSR2, that is not in dispute.
Perhaps this statement needs a little more thought Poynt.
Now,if we were talking an offset AC,then i would agree that in some situations the RMS value could rise while the average value remains the same. But we are measuring RMS value of a DC current,where that current never inverts or has an AC factor. So in this case,the average value would rise along with the RMS value.
This means that not only dose CSR2 have a higher RMS value,it would also have to have a higher average value.
Brad
I've said in summary:
a) The RMS current and hence power dissipated by CSR2 is greater than that of CSR1. There is no debate regarding that.
b) The measured AVG current through both CSR's is equal however, despite their RMS levels being unequal.
c) Thus far the sims and two independent bench tests have confirmed b).
d) If you could confirm or deny b) on video with your own bench test, that would be appreciated by all I think.
In regards to your questions on AVG & RMS values, I am not sure exactly what you are looking for. In hopes of dispelling any confusion or misunderstandings, I will say that just because the RMS value of a particular wave form can increase (say by setting its level higher), that does not necessarily have to be accompanied by a commensurate increase in its AVG value.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.24, 14:57:02
I've said in summary:
a) The RMS current and hence power dissipated by CSR2 is greater than that of CSR1. There is no debate regarding that.
In regards to your questions on AVG & RMS values, I am not sure exactly what you are looking for. In hopes of dispelling any confusion or misunderstandings, I will say that just because the RMS value of a particular wave form can increase (say by setting its level higher), that does not necessarily have to be accompanied by a commensurate increase in its AVG value.
What i am saying is that i understand that when the waveform has an AC component-no problem there.
But if the waveform has only a DC component(such as ours do),and the RMS value is increased,then the average value must also increase.
I know two have tested coils here,but can you point out any that have tested the circuit using a coil that is built the same as mine?, as that is the DUT here in question.
I may get to the bench tonight,and get the video up for you.
Brad.
Meanwhile back at the ranch.........
Concerning the hunt for the 45.5Mhz NMR response to an iron powdered toroid:
I dusted off my nanopulser and i will try to make it alive again, stable and boxed in.
The idea is to use this nanopulse (± 1KV) as the big gun to be fired to the iron powdered toroid to
see if this will cause any 45.5Mhz NMR response.
One of the problems will be to protect the Spectrum Analyzer / Scope inputs during the pulse, but have it
fully opened for "listening" for the response.
Itsu
Cool Itsu.
Do you have a diagram for the test setup yet?
Well, no, not yet.
I am still working on a non-ferromagnetic box to put the toroid in so it is isolated from any stray capacitance
so to not influence the measurements.
If we use the 2x 4turn windings for input / output with some matching cap. trimmers or using a special bicycle wheel
style of winding is also not decided on.
So progressing, but slowly.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.27, 14:09:33
One of the problems will be to protect the Spectrum Analyzer / Scope inputs during the pulse, but have it
fully opened for "listening" for the response.
My approach to such isolation is keeping the Tx coil perpendicular to the Rx coil.
First, both coils should be tuned for MINIMUM reflection coefficient (or return loss or S11 or VSWR) at the target frequency. Using Litz wire for the windings is highly recommended.
Also, the Rx coil
cannot ring (self-oscillate) at the target frequency, or you will not be able to distinguish the LC ringing from the nuclear resonance - this is very important !
When positioning the TX and Rx coil in respect to each other, their Mutual Coupling should be minimized !
This can be done by twisting the coils any way you can for minimum mutual coupling and making a fixture that keeps the coils positioned appropriately with respect to each other. This also means that the coils cannot touch each other in order to avoid capacitive coupling.
Now, winding perpendicular windings on a toroidal core requires some imagination, but it is easy to come up with a way to do it on a cylindrical or square rod (a sample or sample holder).
I admit I was never able to achieve a sharp resonance with a toroidal core, but I was able to do so with a fine iron powder (easy to get) packed in a glass test tube which was purged with Argon (from a TIG welder) and bulk heated to 500ºC and spot melted shut.
After the test tube was sealed with hot Argon inside, it was heated to 400ºC for one day, wrapped in fiberglass isolation and allowed to cool slowly. This annealing process makes the resonance very sharp at 50kHz FWHM.
If you let the iron powder oxidize, then the iron oxides will resonate much higher than 45.5MHz, so be prepared to search up to 48Mhz ...and if the iron gets sulfated - even up to 76MHz.
Below is a diagram of the NMR arrangement, with the metal powder held in a glass tube (light blue).
The big magnets with the steel yoke are not needed when resonating iron because iron has a natural -33T internal field, thus a big homogeneous field is not absolutely needed... but it does not hurt (a 750mT field helps to align the ferromagnetic domains in one direction).
Also, iron features a 10
4 enhancement factor of the nuclear signal, which more than makes up for the 2% isotopic abundance of the susceptible
57Fe.
Last but not least, Solid State RF switches help to protect the sensitive receivers during the Tx pulse and an RF switch can also disconnect the Tx winding during reception, so the impedance of the disabled Tx generator does not absorb the RF energy back and leaves more for the Rx coil to pick up.
Wow, i see that you have found your Macgyver thinking cap again.
The first part seems feasible, and i am trying lately to get the toroid coils tuned for minimum returns loss
by using a parallel trimmer cap (100pF), but i did not find the correct amount of turns yet as the minmum reflection
frequency is way up there (600Mhz).
Seems i need lots of turns which i did not expect using an iron powdered toroid.
The second part of your post is far less feasible imo as it needs a well equipped lab to be able to do all that.
Last but not least, two Solid State RF switches to help to protect the sensitive receivers during the Tx pulse etc.
sounds to be doable.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.28, 10:43:41
Seems i need lots of turns which i did not expect using an iron powdered toroid.
That surprises me too. Is the low return loss dip, before or after the natural LC self-resonance of the coil (while reading left to right on the SA's display) ?
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.28, 10:43:41
The second part of your post is far less feasible imo as it needs a well equipped lab to be able to do all that.
Which part? The perpendicular Tx and Rx coils?
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.28, 10:43:41
Last but not least, two Solid State RF switches to help to protect the sensitive receivers during the Tx pulse etc.
sounds to be doable.
Yes, many manufacturets make Solid State RF switches and single RF MOSFETs can be used to short the inputs of sensitive receivers, too. Watch out for their Drain capacitance, though...
QuoteThat surprises me too. Is the low return loss dip, before or after the natural LC self-resonance of the coil (while reading left to right on the SA's display) ?
Well, thats hard to say as i see severall dips and peaks in the upper frequency range 600 - 1500Mhz.
All are moving slightly when trimming the trimming cap.
The low frequency part (0 - 200Mhz) is almost flat and that is where i expected to see some resonance and low
VSWR responses.
QuoteWhich part? The perpendicular Tx and Rx coils?
No, the fine iron powder etc. part
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.28, 11:39:18
Well, thats hard to say as i see severall dips and peaks in the upper frequency range 600 - 1500Mhz.
If you think about it, an ideal inductor will increase its impedance (only inductive reactance) with frequency forever.
However a real inductor has a parallel self-capacitance, too. This self-capacitance decreases its impedance (capacitive reactance) with frequency.
At LC resonance frequency the reactance of the capacitance cancels the reactance of the inductance.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=30794)
What this means is that above the LC self-resonance frequency
more current flows in the capacitance than in the inductance.
Current flowing in any parallel capacitance
does not contribute to the magnetic field inside the winding
!!!The same goes for any parallel capacitors you add...not series capacitors, though.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.28, 11:39:18
No, the fine iron powder etc. part
Do you mean buying the iron powder or melting the glass with a torch? ....because getting Argon is as easy as going to a welding shop and begging a welder to put some of it in your tube with the powder...
Here the full spectrum in a VSWR measurement.
Having 7 turns and a parallel 100pf trimmer
QuoteDo you mean buying the iron powder or melting the glass with a torch? ....because getting Argon is as easy as going to a welding shop and begging a welder to put some of it in your tube with the powder...
No, more the rest after that, like "heated to 500ºC and spot melted shut" and "it was heated to 400ºC for one day, wrapped in fiberglass isolation and allowed to cool slowly" etc.
Not many people can do that.
Question :
After you have successfully detected the 45.5 MHz NMR signal, what is the next step?
Since Verpies seems very far down the path with this research, what was the next step, and what are the data results?
Has there been success with a Meyer or Colman-Gillespie experiment?
Regards
Quote from: verpies on 2019.01.23, 09:55:42
I didn't like the idea of combining DC and RF in one winding because in general NMR likes the DC field to be perpendicular to the RF field. It is a geometric issue that necessitates a separate DC winding (or a big magnet).
I thought that might be an issue.
Quote
On a scope it looks like this:
During the T1 period, the matter absorbs the RF energy of very specific frequency (±100kHz). This absorption loads and decreases the amplitude of the Tx generator, which the receiver can sense.
By "TX" and "RX" are you referring to the two coils on the core? Are the two coils wound as a transformer, or are they in quadrature?
The TX signal looks as though it maintains a steady amplitude.
Quote
During the T2 period, after the Tx generator is turned off, the matter re-radiates this RF energy back.
Generally T2<T1.
Note that the absorption during T1 causes a dip on the Spectrum Analyzer and the re-radiation during T2 causes a peak at the same frequency. If the dip/peak are not separated somehow, they can cancel each other on the spectrogram.
I find it difficult to understand how they might cancel each other when according to the scope shot the two events are not coincident in time.
Quote
The above leads me to another question for you: What would be your idea for separating them during measurement?
As I alluded above, it seems to me that they are already separated by time.
Quote from: ion on 2019.01.28, 16:33:20
Question :
After you have successfully detected the 45.5 MHz NMR signal, what is the next step?
Since Verpies seems very far down the path with this research, what was the next step, and what are the data results?
Has there been success with a Meyer or Colman-Gillespie experiment?
Regards
The next step is to create a nuclear feedback loop, i.e. combine the nuclear spin alignment geometrically with a confining magnetic field in such manner, that the "charge" being released from the nuclear poles, forms a geometric circle inside the iron through Lorentz deflection.
Let's leave it unexplained for now whether the "charge" emitted from nuclear poles are the fast electrons from beta decay or something else.
itsu
your comment here
Itsu quote
No, more the rest after that, like "heated to 500ºC and spot melted shut" and "it was heated to 400ºC for one day, wrapped in fiberglass isolation and allowed to cool slowly" etc.
Not many people can do that.
end quote
------------------------------------------------
we have the skills to do this for you here ,however does the temp need to be maintained throughout entire procedure
or can prepared sample be shipped once treated ?
more info from verpies can help expedite ?
a wee jewelry/pottery kiln for your lab would be needed if sample integrity relied upon maintaining temp [could not be shipped
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.28, 19:05:50
I thought that might be an issue.
By "TX" and "RX" are you referring to the two coils on the core? Are the two coils wound as a transformer, or are they in quadrature?
Quadrature
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.28, 19:05:50
The TX signal looks as though it maintains a steady amplitude.
If the Tx generator has a very low impedance then yes. But with higher impedance the output of the generator will be loaded down.
The Rx coil will also perceive this RF energy absorption.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.28, 19:05:50
I find it difficult to understand how they might cancel each other when according to the scope shot the two events are not coincident in time.
Yes, they are separated, but the spectrum analyzer's reception window is long to catch them both. This way the decreased amplitude during the T1 period will subtract from the amplitude of the T2 period.
Quote from: verpies on 2019.01.28, 19:28:14
Yes, they are separated, but the spectrum analyzer's reception window is long to catch them both. This way the decreased amplitude during the T1 period will subtract from the amplitude of the T2 period.
Two possible solutions come time mind:
1) Significantly reduce the BW on the display, and change the settings to achieve the fastest refresh rate.
2) Design/build/modify a dedicated RF receiver tuned for the frequency of interest and monitor either the direct frequency or mix it down to some pedestrian (IF) frequency and monitor its RSSI.
Quote from: verpies on 2019.01.23, 09:55:42
I didn't like the idea of combining DC and RF in one winding because in general NMR likes the DC field to be perpendicular to the RF field. It is a geometric issue that necessitates a separate DC winding (or a big magnet).
Since the RX coil is situated in quadrature, might it be viable to apply the DC bias field to the RX coil rather than the TX coil?
Also, a decent RF receiver will have about 20dB more sensitivity than a typical spectrum analyzer, and it will have very good selectivity. A SA on the other hand has next to zero selectivity.
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.01.28, 19:22:30
...does the temp need to be maintained throughout entire procedure or can prepared sample be shipped once treated ?
This is simply annealing iron in Argon to prevent oxidation. So after cooling it can be shipped like any annealed iron.
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.01.28, 19:22:30
a wee jewelry/pottery kiln for your lab would be needed if sample integrity relied upon maintaining temp [could not be shipped
Yes, but I did not have one so I used a cheap toaster oven on a variac ;)
The hardest part is melting and sealing the glass tube with all air in it displaced by Argon and Iron powder.
The Argon needs to be hot during sealing so it does not expand and explode the glass tube later when it is put in the toaster oven in the sealed state.
BTW: A non-annealed iron powder in a plastic 5cc syringe works, too ...albeit not as well.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.28, 20:23:00
Since the RX coil is situated in quadrature, might it be viable to apply the DC bias field to the RX coil rather than the TX coil?
It still would be in the wrong direction as the DC field needs to be perpendicular to both of these coils.
Take a look at
this diagram (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=30760). The DC field is created by a big steel yoke with magnets (it could be an electromagnet, too).
The good news is that crystalline iron has its own strong internal field (-33 Tesla) so it does not need a field applied from outside...albeit it does help a little with domain alignment.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.28, 20:23:00
Also, a decent RF receiver will have about 20dB more sensitivity than a typical spectrum analyzer, and it will have very good selectivity. A SA on the other hand has next to zero selectivity.
That's good to know. Thanks.
How would you implement "receiver blanking" to protect its front end from the powerful Tx pulse?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.28, 19:42:03
1) Significantly reduce the BW on the display, and change the settings to achieve the fastest refresh rate.
Even if a spectrum Analyzer could refresh so fast (it cannot) , human eyes would never notice them because the two responses are microseconds apart.
Another question:
How would you help Itsu match his Tx coil to his generator so it receives the most ampturns ?
...we want the HF current to flow through the windings - not through some parallel capacitance.
Quote from: verpies on 2019.01.29, 00:19:58
The good news is that crystalline iron has its own strong internal field (-33 Tesla) so it does not need an external one...albeit it does help a little with domain alignment.
It has a residual magnetic field? Is it externally detectable?
Quote
How would you implement "receiver blanking" to protect its front end from the powerful Tx pulse?
Being that everyone is orthogonal, I don't know if there would be a need. Mutual coupling should be minimal.
Quote
Another question:
How would you help Itsu match his Tx coil to his generator so it receives the most ampturns ?
...we want the HF current to flow through the windings - not through some parallel capacitance.
One way might be to tune the TX coil with a parallel cap, as I suggested before. "Match" implies impedance matching for maximum power transfer to the load (the TX coil). Tuning/matching for 50R and 45.5MHz might turn out to be impractical however.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.01.29, 02:36:53
Quote from: verpies on 2019.01.29, 00:19:58
The good news is that crystalline iron has its own strong internal field (-33 Tesla) so it does not need a field applied from outside...albeit it does help a little with domain alignment.
It has a residual magnetic field? Is it externally detectable?
Yes. The intrinsic internal magnetic field inside ferromagnetic domains (and between them) is very strong (-33T) and is detectable in experiments
like this (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=30444), and the intrinsic external field is the conventional ferromagnetic remanence (milliTeslas) due to imperfect domain randomization and nonzero coercivity.
Verpies
quote
The Argon needs to be hot during sealing so it does not expand and explode the glass tube later when it is put in the toaster oven in the sealed state.
end quote
this next part [after the experimenter receives the properly prepared samples]
needs some "splainin"
experimenters want to be certain they have what it takes to complete a successful experiment [besides the prerequisite "big Kahoona's"
is there a link you can post for this protocol or is this a path less traveled ?
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.01.29, 16:19:57
Experimenters want to be certain they have what it takes to complete a successful experiment [besides the prerequisite "big Kahoona's"
The theory is in that paper I linked recently but the practical details are not available anywhere together.
I think that investing into a fixture like
this (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=30760) is a good idea for anyone serious to play with NMR. I know Grumage could machine it easily out of a chunk of mild steel over the weekend if he had two N52 100mm NdFeB disk magnets. This fixture is not a prerequisite for iron NMR though.
A scope is s prerequisite together with a signal generator and some wire for small RF coils. If the generator is weak then an RF amp.
IMO having a fixed frequency oscillator is a minimum for CW NMR but having a variable RF generator like Itsu opens up many exciting possibilities such as pulsed NMR and spin echos. RF switches can help to protect receivers and disconnect the generator from the Tx coil after a pulse, so its low impedance does not load down the oscillations between pulses.
A spectrum analyzer or VNA is nice to have to match coils to the sample holder. Poynt suggested a sensitive ham radio receiver as an alternative.to SA.
can your sample holding fixture be 3D printed to start with ?[its all the rage here ATM]
I believe I read that the Holders "ferrous" properties were not as important for FE experiments ?
also what is actually holding the sample .... can it be held too tight [or hinder the effect ?]
your design does imply a very strong structure ...[which plastic is not
sorry if these are stupid question ...but thats why I get paid the Big Bucs ...[yes a paradox !"]
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.01.30, 17:28:04
can your sample holder be 3D printed to start with ?[its all the rage here ATM]
I believe I read that the Holders "ferrous" properties were not as important for FE experiments ?
Yes, the coil and sample holder can be 3D printed in plastic.
However the steel yoke needs to guide the return flux from these big permanent magnets, so it needs to be ferromagnetic.
I found that a good cheap source for a huge yokes like this are stators of old broken industrial motors from a junk yard. They are laminated, too, ...which is even better.
They still needs some machining to fit the flat disk magnets inside them (the middle and right versions will work well, re.: the attached diagram).
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.01.30, 17:28:04
also what is actually holding the sample .... can it be held too tight [or hinder the effect ?]
No, it cannot be too tight.
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.01.30, 17:28:04
your design does imply a very strong structure ...
Well, the big permanent magnets attract themselves with half a ton of force, so it needs to be strong enough to withstand that. Also, the yoke should have low magnetic reluctance to guide the return flux from these big permanent magnets ...and low reluctance means thick steel.
Perhaps the stator from a large " Universal " motor could be used?
If you left the windings in place you could have a variably controlled magnetic field too!
Cheers Graham.
Grum ! :)
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.01.30, 18:04:22
Perhaps the stator from a large " Universal " motor could be used?
Of course...and rust does not even matter.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.01.30, 18:04:22
If you left the windings in place you could have a variably controlled magnetic field too!
Yup
Still trying to match the 50 Ohm Tracking Generator to the toroid under test for maximum power transfer.
I went back to the 174nH which at 45Mhz stands for a reactance of 50 Ohm.
This 174nH is accomplished by having a 4 turns coil around the T225-6 toroid.
For tuning i put a 100pF trimmer cap in series with the coil and that seems to work allhough
the tuning peak is very broad.
What i do notice on the Spectrum Analyzer screen is not only this broad peak manifesting itself
by moving the whole screen line up or down, but also a smaller peak which does not move, not
by the trimmer adjustment, nor by touching the coil, toroid or trimmer.
I use the TG/SA in series mode, see here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg71352#msg71352
Screenshot shows the little peak, a video is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWU2wYwUFTE
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.30, 20:19:03
...but also a smaller peak which does not move, not by the trimmer adjustment, nor by touching the coil, toroid or trimmer.
1) What if you slightly change the number of turns or the length of the BNC cable ?
2) What if you connect the two BNC cables (with screw terminal adapters) directly with two bolts (effectively making a "through"), thus taking the coil and trimmer out of the measurement alltogether?
P.S.
After doing pt.2 it would be prudent to calibrate / normalize the SA. Next, reinsert the trimmer and repeat the measurements and then reinsert the coil and do the measurements again.
Quote from: verpies on 2019.01.30, 20:37:26
1) What if you slightly change the number of turns or the length of the BNC cable ?
2) What if you connect the two BNC cables (with screw terminal adapters) directly with two bolts (effectively making a "through"), thus taking the coil and trimmer out of the measurement alltogether?
P.S.
After doing pt.2 it would be prudent to calibrate / normalize the SA. Next, reinsert the trimmer and repeat the measurements and then reinsert the coil and do the measurements again.
If i replace the coil/cap by a BNC-BNC through, the peak stays.
When normalizing with this through, its gone of cource, but it stays gone when reinserting the coil/cap.
So it is an artifact of the normalisation process which i did by placing a "short" across the coil/cap.
This short (piece of 5cm copper wire) parallel to the coil/cap seems to create this little peak.
Thanks Itsu
You should always normalize after completing your cabling and test fixture and immediately BEFORE inserting the DUT. Otherwise you'll be measuring the fixture, too.
Yes, and i do, but the normalizing was done with a short jumper cable across the (series mode attached) dut
(the grounded testleads are fixed connected by a jumper).
So a had 2 short jumper cables shorting the dut during the normalizing, but still this causes the peak at 43Mhz.
Well, good to know, again.
But it shows that this 4 turn coils with 100pF cap can make a good match to the TG/SA.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.30, 20:53:04
...
This short (piece of 5cm copper wire) parallel to the coil/cap seems to create this little peak.
...
Maybe it acts as an antenna and you receive a transmitter in the neighbourhood? The scope itself, or a generator, or any other electronic equipment nearby may have clocks generating such signals.
Could you listen to the frequency with a radio?
No, no sign of any big signal around 43Mhz.
I do see he local 105Mhz FM station on the SA, but thats way more broadbanded.
Also the SDR receiver only shows some minor crap signals around 43Mhz, nothing strong.
Must come from the coil/cap i guess during the (wrong) normalisation process.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.01.31, 14:01:01
...
Also the SDR receiver only shows some minor crap signals around 43Mhz, nothing strong.
Must come from the coil/cap i guess during the (wrong) normalisation process.
A resonance effect in the internal circuit of the scope must not be eliminated, as well as a signal generated by the scope itself but weak and undetectable from the outside. If you connect the SDR in place of the scope, does it also show the peak? If so, it becomes very interesting.
I am not using a scope, just my Spectrum Analyzer with its Tracking Generator.
The 43 / 41Mhz dip/peak is caused by the normalisation process i do before any test.
It seems that using a short piece of wire (5 - 15 cm) to short out the DUT creates this 41/43Mhz dip
which then after normalisation and removal of the shorting wire turns into a (false) peak.
See video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iis2eHjJNU
Itsu
The problem with my nanopulser as shown a few posts ago here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg71665#msg71665
is that the Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF) was to high (min. 1Khz) as we now need a PRF of about 1Hz.
The nanopulse drive circuit (74HCT00 and 74HCT02) used was not able to go that low, so verpies designed
a new drive circuit around a single 74HC221 chip, see diagram.
This drive circuit is able to generate a 100-200ns square pulse at about 5V every 1Hz which is OK to drive
the nanopulse circuit.
I breadboarded this new circuit and was able to produce these 100-200ns pulses at about 2Hz PRF.
A quick and dirty test using the nanopulse circuit showed good result, see screenshot.
I also made a LTspice simulation of this drive circuit, see picture below which shows in green the 85ns square pulse
from pin 5 going to the R7 load and in blue the output from the oscillator stage at pin 13.
.asc file attached. (make sure you have the 74HC library).
I now need to build this drive circuit the proper way (RF sound) to get it running stable.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.02.01, 15:34:08
I am not using a scope, just my Spectrum Analyzer with its Tracking Generator.
The 43 / 41Mhz dip/peak is caused by the normalisation process i do before any test.
It seems that using a short piece of wire (5 - 15 cm) to short out the DUT creates this 41/43Mhz dip
which then after normalisation and removal of the shorting wire turns into a (false) peak.
See video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iis2eHjJNU
Itsu
Itsu,
It would be interesting to see a normalization sweep using a 6" piece of 50R coax with 50R N-N or BNC-BNC connectors.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.03, 02:54:06
Itsu,
It would be interesting to see a normalization sweep using a 6" piece of 50R coax with 50R N-N or BNC-BNC connectors.
Poynt, you mean parallel to the DUT like i did in the video using a 6" piece of copper wire?
I know when removing the DUT during normalisation (which is how it should be) and using a bnc to bnc connection across the TG/SA the 43Mhz dip/peak is gone.
itsu
I did mean direct, not in parallel with the DUT.
Interesting that adding the wire in parallel had that effect. But then again, we know that a wire is not just a wire.
The new nanopulser driver simulation as shown above in post #159 was expanded with the pulse generator components
as i have it running (with some changes as i could not find the correct LTspice components).
The picture shows the complete circuit with the result.
light blue is the MOSFET driver input (from the 74HC221)
green is the MOSFET driver output / gate signal
dark blue is the MOSFET drain signal
red is the nanopulse across R8 ( probe referenced across R8)
Remarks;
for MOSFET driver i use the UCC27511 instead of the shown LTC4440-5 running on 12V instead of 20V here.
The nanopulse diode D4 is a KD226D in my circuit instead of the MUR460 here.
The generated nanopulse (red) is not really the real nanopulse as the MUR460 is not a good diode for it,
nor probably LTspice can simulate it.
Also the used toroid transformer in the pulse part probably needs to be saturated which is not attempted here.
Toroid is a 10x6x4 one with 6 turns primary and 12 turns secondary.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.02.04, 21:18:21
The generated nanopulse (red) is not really the real nanopulse as the MUR460 is not a good diode for it,
nor probably LTspice can simulate it.
Yes, I don't think LTSpice can simulate the DSR effect in diodes, which is essential for the generation of the nanopulse.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.02.04, 21:18:21
Also the used toroid transformer in the pulse part probably needs to be saturated which is not attempted here.
The saturation of the transformer's core when the voltage across C7 reaches its peak is very important for the amplitude of the nanopulse.
ANOTHER OBSERVATION:
If the diode D3 is a bidirectional TVS diode (or a Transil, Transorb) then the current in the primary winding of the transformer is interrupted much faster than with a regular or Schottky diode.
The main required characteristic of such bi-dir TVS diode is that its clamping voltage (
VTVS) is greater than the Drain supply voltage (V3) and
LESS than but close to the maximum Drain-Source voltage (V
DS_MAX) of the power MOSFET minus V3. In mathspeak: V3 <
VTVS ≤ (V
DS_MAX - V3)
Hmmm, the TVS diode would be a problem then in my real circuit as V3 is 130V and Vds=200V (IRFP260N).
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.02.05, 14:32:29
Hmmm, the TVS diode would be a problem then in my real circuit as V3 is 130V and Vds=200V (IRFP260N).
Yes.. and that explains why a normal diode sits in there.
For such low V
DS_MAX MOSFETs a TVS diode can do its job in
this (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=30965) D3 position.
...and what this position changes is that now the TVS diode has to have a clamping voltage greater than V3 and LESS than V
DS_MAX (but close to it) and it does not have to be bidirectional. In mathspeak: V3 <
VTVS ≤ V
DS_MAXI recommend checking with a scope whether the TVS diode is really clamping at the declared voltage with the target pulse width, because I found out the hard way, that the datasheets are not always truthful about this parameter.
Thanks, i prefer to keep the good old nanopulser part the way it is as it seems to work rather reliable now.
I can make another DSRD section using say a FQA11N90 (900V) MOSFET so i can double the drain voltage to 260V
and still use your bidirectional TVS diode scheme (900-260=640V).
Goes to the todo list.
Itsu
Of course.
When you will be building a new DSRD Section, consider the transformer core selection tips in the attached article.
Interesting article, impressive peak power.
It reminds me of the discussion thread DSRD pulse generator (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1556.0) on the subject we had a few years ago.
I build the verpies designed 74HC221 nanopulse driver on a pcb in "dead bug" fashion and boxed it in
a small tin box so to exclude as much noise as possible.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4_3zEOky_g
Itsu
Peppermunt, huh?
Seems pretty crisp to me....
What is the adjustment range ?
Yep, "pepermunt", they came in these neat tin boxes, however, not anymore, my wife took another brand, plastic now.
I did not check the range yet, but will be enough to cover my needs i think.
I added a 50 Ohm series resistor at the output pin 5 (to coax) to minimize the reflections like we did on the TL494.
But it did not do much, guess its crisp enough.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.02.09, 10:01:55
I added a 50 Ohm series resistor at the output pin 5 (to coax) to minimize the reflections like we did on the TL494.
But it did not do much, guess its crisp enough.
To minimize the reflections, the series resistor PLUS the internal output impedance of the 74HC221, together would have to make up 50Ω.
The internal coax would have to have the 50Ω impedance, as well. The connector through the peppermunt's wall, too (e.g. a BNC female panel connector).
However, the MOSFET driver, that will be fed by these ~100ns pulses in the future, does not have a 50Ω
input impedance, so a different match would have to be done with it.
a little update, as i got some parts like the bidirectional TVS diode (1.5kE440CA), some P600M diodes,
some TN10/6/4-3E25 (white) toroids.
The TVS clamps at 450V, (using a flyswatter at 1200v), so fairly close to its specs.
I made a 200V drain power supply out of the flyswatter :D! and tried this setup (74HC221 driver, 200V flyswatter PS)
with my old nanopulser part and it reached 1.5KV.
The flyswatter PS (output 1200V @ 3V input) has a 440TVS across its output clamping it to 450V, followed by a
200V zener into a 330uF / 450V capacitor and is able to keep the voltage (200V) stable at the 1Hz pulse repetition
frequency.
Any problems to be foreseen with this 200V setup?
Its very tiny, does the job and as said has enough energy stored into the cap to keep it pulsing, as a matter
of fact, it keeps on pulsing about a minute after removing the input to this cap, slowly dropping the nanopulse
amplitude.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.02.14, 09:54:47
Any problems to be foreseen with this 200V setup?
I don't foresee any problems with the circuit if the wire insulation withstands this voltage.
I used to use a flyswatter myself, but I have switched to an electric stun-gun (for self-defense) since then >:-)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31%2BDRXR%2BKJL.jpg)
Wow, looking potent indeed, and was thinking of owning one myself, but they are illegal overhere now.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.02.14, 10:52:03
Wow, looking potent indeed, and was thinking of owning one myself, but they are illegal over here now.
Any voltage is illegal in your country, or just above some limit?
No, any voltage is illegal, its not allowed to have one and falls in the same category as firearms.
While waiting for parts for the 45Mhz project (it takes weeks to get them nowadays), i dove into a home automation project i wanted to do.
Why? Because here in The Netherlands we use mainly natural gas for heating and cooking because we have (had) a hugh natural gas pocket underneath the north-east part of our country.
As this gas is running out now and is causing earth quakes in that part, the governement decided to start pushing everybody off the gas and into alternative energy by slowly triple the tax on gas and halfing it on electricity.
So everbody is looking on his own way to heat his house and we decided to use the surplus of our 6kWh solar system (24 x 250W panels) for (extra) heating.
That solar system was 8 years ago calculated for the 6kWh because then we on average use about 5700kWh/year.
Since then, because of led lamps and other energy efficient matters, we now dropped to about 3500kWh/year.
This surplus of 2500kWh/year is now retuned to the provider at a third of the costs (7ct/kWh) we have to pay for it when buying from them (22ct/kWh).
So we have 2500kWh/y to spend on heating next to the gas system so we bought 2 infrared heating panels, one 1000W, and one 700W to aid in heating the livingroom first.
To get a good insight in the kWh uses and the hoped for drop in M³ Gas, the need for a good home automation system arose.
I decided for DOMOTICZ.
They have a starter kit which includes a Raspberry PI with their Domoticz program which has a mass of sensors already implemented.
It runs as a headless system, so without screen, keyboard and mouse and is reachable by its webserver on every PC, laptop, tabled or smartphone and is placed into the metercloset where all the energy meters are.
This starter kit comes with a P1 USB cable (interface) to interface with the smart meters (via their P1 port) to monitor Electricity and Gas.
Its kind of plug and play and within a few hours i had the real time (10sec intervall) data for Electricity uses and Gas uses with nice graphs etc.
The Electricity shows the 4 counters we have (2 for incoming energy (high and low tariff) and 2 for outgoing energy (high and low tariff).
But i still missed the yield of the solar panels to see what is effectively used directly (most cost efficient).
We do have a solar data monitor system, but its in the metercloset and needs to be scrolled through by pushing a button there.
It does also have a webpage where you can login to show your average yield/day, month, etc, but is kind of slow (hours).
This solar data monitor system box has a led that pulses 1000 times per kWh, so i decided to use that pulse to interface with the Domoticz Raspberry PI as it has a pulse counter interface.
I bought a 5-port pulse sensor USB cable which is also supported by Domoticz, build a pulse detector using a photo transistor followed by a 555 timer to shape up the pulse signal (30ms pulses needed) and an opto coupler to isolate it.
This pulse was fed into the 5-port interface and connected to the Raspberry.
It now shows very accuratly the real time (10s) yield in watts and overall yield/day, month, etc. of our solar system.
Comparing the Gas uses, Electricity uses and the solar yield is now very easy as it is displayed on 1 web page.
Finally not because it was needed, but because i can (still have 4 counter ports left), i decided to try to monitor the water uses.
It seems that my watermeter has a hidden hole (covered) in which one can put a hall sensor which senses a magnetic field from a magnet placed on the half of the last digit (0.1L) disk in this meter.
So every 0.5 liter the Hall switches on and the next 0.5L off.
Again i used a similar circuit to shape up the Hall sensor signal with a 555 timer, but followed it by a 74HC221 to only trigger on a UP going pulse from the Hall/555 (verpies design, slighly modified).
The result is a pulse (30ms) every liter of water and again is passed on to an opto coupler into the 2th port of the 5-port pulse counter.
After some adjustments, the Domoticz now shows the water uses/day, month, etc. in liters and M³ water.
All in all i am pleased with this result and it shows during the last month that we are on the right track by using the surplus solar yield and dropping the gas uses by about 50%.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYESkq3ahlc
Dashboard picture here:
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.05, 20:55:07
This surplus of 2500kWh/year is now retuned to the provider at a third of the costs (7ct/kWh) we have to pay for it when buying from them (22ct/kWh).
Aaassssholeeess!
Anyway, do you know the breakdown between the cost of electric energy production and the cost of electric energy transmission, for your electric utility company ?
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.05, 20:55:07
All in all i am pleased with this result and it shows during the last month that we are on the right track by using the surplus solar yield and droping the gas uses by about 50%.
I love it! Did you have to do a lot of programming ?
It still has a room for improvement through selling the excess kWh to your neighbor.
Also, increasing the capacity of your hot water tank A LOT, insulating it with shiny aluminum foil + polyurethane foam and using the heat energy accumulated in it during the day for house-heating during the night, seems like a good idea, too.
QuoteAnyway, do you know the breakdown between the cost of electric energy production and the cost of electric energy transmission, for your electric utility company ?
Well, no, not really, they keep it as vague as possible.
QuoteIt still has a room for improvement through selling the excess kWh to your neighbor.
8 years ago we decided as neighbors to setup this solar system on our houses, so basically all neighbors have a similar system.
Perhaps i need to buy an electric car.
My gas unit has a small hot water tank for direct uses, but its in the gas unit, so no additional water tank yet, but of course its a good idea indeed.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.05, 21:33:49
Well, no, not really, they keep it as vague as possible.
In Czech Republic (also an EU country) the transmission of 1kWh costs 0.036EUR ( ...that does not include the energy generation cost, which is: 0.065EUR / kWh )
It might be useful to remember, that the energy transmission cost is approximately HALF of the energy generation cost.
So the electric utility company IS ripping you off (especially that day tariffs are more expensive than night tariffs), and that might create a business opportunity for a lawyer, in which he knocks on the door of every house with solar panels and collects signatures for a class-action suit.
P.S.
Did you have to do a lot of programming to integrate it all together?
Well done Itsu
Sounds amazing, i capture rain water and process it through a RO unit to produce pure water for my marine fish tank, the waste water goes onto another water butt to feed the greenhouse watering system and does have the possibility to feed my toilet flush (not yet plumbed it in though)
In the uk for every litre of water used from the mains they assume a percentage goes down the toilet and sink and you get another bill for waste water treatment based on your water usage.
I do have an electric car and could really do with installing solar PV, i used 7552kWh of electricity in the last 12 months, this is including my commute of 46miles to work and back each working day (about 14kwh a day), for that amount of electricity i paid £1467
Quote from: verpies on 2019.03.05, 21:48:09
In Czech Republic (also an EU country) the transmission of 1kWh costs 0.036EUR ( ...that does not include the energy generation cost, which is: 0.065EUR / kWh )
It might be useful to remember, that the energy transmission cost is approximately HALF of the energy generation cost.
So the electric utility company IS ripping you off (especially that day tariffs are more expensive than night tariffs), and that might create a business opportunity for a lawyer, in which he knocks on the door of every house with solar panels and collects signatures for a class-action suit.
P.S.
Did you have to do a lot of programming to integrate it all together?
In my yearly specification, i read nothing on energy generation costs.
There is something they call delivery costs (probably your transmission costs) which went up from 11.4 ct/day in 2018 to 12 ct/day this year. (could be it has the generation costs included here).
Further they juggle with tariffs per day or per kWh, before tax, with tax etc. so almost impossible to understand.
Anyway, at the bottom of the specification is the amount to beat which was successfull the last 8 years (no electricity costs and some €250 / year returned).
QuoteDid you have to do a lot of programming to integrate it all together?
I tried to avoid doing any additional programming like using LUA scripts or Python scripts which seems to be common to use in adding sensors, so therefor i went for Domoticz which has a vast array of sensors already in it.
So no, no additional programming needed, i only needed to change the Raspberry PI DHCP assigned IP-address into a static IP-address in my network so i can easily browse to it (done via putty on Windows).
Itsu
Quote from: Peterae on 2019.03.05, 22:02:03
Well done Itsu
Sounds amazing, i capture rain water and process it through a RO unit to produce pure water for my marine fish tank, the waste water goes onto another water butt to feed the greenhouse watering system and does have the possibility to feed my toilet flush (not yet plumbed it in though)
In the uk for every litre of water used from the mains they assume a percentage goes down the toilet and sink and you get another bill for waste water treatment based on your water usage.
I do have an electric car and could really do with installing solar PV, i used 7552kWh of electricity in the last 12 months, this is including my commute of 46miles to work and back each working day (about 14kwh a day), for that amount of electricity i paid £1467
Thanks Peter,
Allthough not intended to monitor, the water sensor shows some amazing things like every toilet flush is about 8 liters of water, the amount of water used by the dish washer, the washing machine or for a shower etc.
My milage is very low (46000km in the 12 years on my present car), so allthough an electric car was planned in combination with the solar system, it never came of it, not economical enough, perhaps in the next years.
Your costs are about 19 ct (penny?) / kWh then, which seems similar as we have.
Itsu
I bought myself a external reference 10Mhz oscillator which is linked to the GPS satelite system for optimum accuratie.
This GPSDO (GPS Disciplined Oscillator) has an Oven Controlled Crystal Oscillator (OCXO) which is synced to this GPS system via an antenna.
The meaning is to use this highly accurate reference 10Mhz signal to sync my Spectrum Analyzer (SA) and Function Generator (FG) with (and lateron perhaps my Ham radio stuff).
It seems that by using this setup, my tracking generator in my SA now has the same stability as this external reference signal , same deal with the FG.
The FG sometimes reject the presented reference signal and switches back to its internal oscillator, so there something needs to be checked.
Picture of the box see below, a video of some testing here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1_al6vIvF4
Regards Itsu
In the "Specifications" chapter and the "Internal/ External Reference" section of the DSA815 Manual, it is written, that the maximum amplitude at the ExtRef input should be +10dBm, which at the 50Ω input impedance translates (http://wera.cen.uni-hamburg.de/DBM.shtml) to 2VP-P
So, if the GPSDO is maintaining the 5VP-P at 50Ω load then you are overdriving the DSA815 quite a lot. Measuring the amplitude of the GPSDO at the end of a BNC cable terminated with a Tee and a 50Ω terminating resistor*, would give you more accurate amplitude reading.
Also, the DSA815's Clock Reference output has 50Ω impedance while the DG4102's ExtRef input has 1kΩ impedance** , so without a matching termination*** at the end of the cable you are going to have terrible reflections!
After you eliminate these reflections and verify, that the external clocks' amplitudes are within acceptable limits (in-circuit with the Tee at inputs), you should run all of your tests again.
* ...or scoped in-circuit with a Tee at the real 50Ω ExtRef input of the SA.
** see the DG4102's Manual, chapter "Specifications", section "Clock Reference", subsection "External Reference Input", point "Impedance (typical)"
*** 53Ω in parallel with 1kΩ yields 50Ω. So a 53Ω BNC "feed-thru" termination resistor would be ideal to match the SA's clock output to the FG's ExtRef input.
hmmm, i would have expected that equipment of the same manufacturer would have the same specifications
regarding common things like these external reference ports.
Thanks for pointing out the opposite.
Probably 2 (or more) teams working only on either FG's, Scopes, SA's etc. like at my former employer.
Diving into it....Itsu
A quick check shows that the output of the GPSDO at the end of a short coax cable which has a tee with a 50 Ohm
terminator on 1 side is 3vpp just like the specs of the GPSDO mentions.
So far so good, no overloading of the SA.
Will deal with the FG mismatch later today.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.15, 09:45:59
A quick check shows that the output of the GPSDO at the end of a short coax cable which has a tee with a 50 Ohm terminator on 1 side is 3vpp just like the specs of the GPSDO mentions.
So far so good, no overloading of the SA.
Are you sure?
3V
P-P translates to +14.5dBm at 50Ω...and the DSA815 Manual states, that the maximum level at the External Reference input is +10dBm
P.S.
I am curious how accurate your VC3165 frequency counter is, too.
I meant that the GPSDO is working according to its specs (3vpp output), but yes its still to much for the SA.
Will insert a 3 or 6 dB attenuator inbetween.
The FG still (only at first poweron) rejects the external ref signal, even now with a 50 Ohm resistor parallel.
After some time (hour) it accept it, not sure why that is.
The vc3165 was at 10Mhz about 20Hz off, so now i have it calibrated within 10Hz (last digit not visisble).
Itsu
3dB attenuation did the trick, 2Vpp in 50 Ohm into the SA.
The FG does not accept the signal with the 50 Ohm parallel to it, without it it does.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.15, 10:28:51
The FG does not accept the signal with the 50 Ohm parallel to it, without it it does.
What is the signal level at the FG's ExtRef input ?
The DG4102 Manual states, that is should be between 250mV
P-P and 5V
P-P... square.
2.9Vpp when open, 2.8Vpp with 1K parallel and 1.5Vpp with 50 Ohm parallel
Just noticed that my coax jumper cables are 75 Ohm.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.15, 10:42:54
Just noticed that my coax jumper cables are 75 Ohm.
Ooops!
P.S.
Did you notice that the FG outputs a square wave and expects a square wave at its 10MHz ExtRef input ?
BTW: that input is AC Coupled, so a single-supply sine-to-square wave converter will work (e.g. 74VHC14)....but where to get the +2V to +5V supply voltage for it ?
yes, i will make some 50 Ohm jumpers first.
Indeed the FG external ref output is a 10 Mhz square wave DC signal 5Vpp.
When attaching the SA feedthrough 10Mhz signal and switching to external reference, the signal changes to a 2.9Vpp sine wave mostly above the zero line, so no pure AC sine wave.
So there is some battle at that single in/out ref port of the FG.
First i will switch to 50 Ohm jumpers, then see if i can transform the 10Mhz sine wave signal from the SA to a square wave DC signal to feed to the FG.
By the way, i have the RS232 port of the GPSDO connected to my PC, so i have accurate time and all kind of info from the GPS satellites circling above.
Itsu
I tried to make myself a sine to square wave converter using a 74AC14.
The circuit was simulated in LTspice (using a 74HC14) and shows what i want (picture 1).
After building this circuit using a 74AC14, i see some problems, like the distorted sine wave,
the ringing on the square wave, but the basis seems OK, see screenshot.
I use a 10Mhz signal (2Vpp @ 50 Ohm) from the FG for now.
Guess i need some better matching, see the 4.599v input sine wave while the FG was set to 2Vpp @ 50 Ohm.
The 5v supply is bypassed with 100nF ceramic and a 47uF cap.
All unused input points are grounded.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.15, 20:12:20
I use a 10Mhz signal (2Vpp @ 50 Ohm) from the FG for now.
Good for testing.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.15, 20:12:20
Guess i need some better matching,
Yes, the input of the sine2sq converter should have an impedance of 50Ω. Sth like the circuit below might be a way to realize it.
Experiment with R1 and R2 down to 50Ω (but always R1=R2) in order to achieve minimum sinewave distortion at the
input of the converter. Finally, adjust R3 for minimum squarewave distortion at the FG's ExtRef
input, when the converter's output is driving it.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.15, 20:12:20
The 5v supply is bypassed with 100nF ceramic and a 47uF cap.
The 47μF might be an overkill at 10MHz. I would trade it for 1nF.
Bypass the V
CC and Gnd in a similar manner, too, at the R1 & R2 connections.
P.S.
Avoid inverters (even Schmitt inverters) with TTL level inputs such as 74HCT14 and 74ACT14 and 74VHCT14 because the ½V
CC voltage level is considered a HIGH level by their inputs.
Thanks,
tried with 2x 100 Ohms and a 1nF ceramic instead of the 47uF, but no real change seen.
Will try tomorrow with lower values resistors.
Lowering the input signal to 1Mhz shows very nice signals, so this 10Mhz might be to high for this 74AC14 .
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.15, 21:33:28
Lowering the input signal to 1Mhz shows very nice signals, so this 10Mhz might be to high for this 74AC14 .
Connecting 2 or 4 of these inverters
in series will make them respond faster.
Three things to consider:
1) Watch for probing artifacts - see the 1
st attached file.
2) Inverters with Schmitt inputs (such as the 74AC14 and 74VHC14) distort the input waveform a little because of their O-->I feedback due to the built-in hysteresis. The
plain input inverters (such as the 74AC04 and 74VHC04) do not affect their inputs so much.
3) Supplying the inverter with 3V might be better than with 5V when the input waveform has a small amplitude. For example: the 74AC14 needs a 3.3V
P-P input waveform to switch reliably, when it is supplied with 5.5V ...yet the same chip needs only a 2V
P-P input waveform to switch reliably, when it is supplied with 3V *.
*
The plain input inverter (such as the 74AC04) needs only 2.2VP-P input waveform to switch reliably when it is supplied with 5.5V ...and 1.2VP-P - when it is supplied with 3V.
In all these examples it is assumed that the input waveform is centered at ½VCC
In series and faster he, that seems to contradict in my mind, so lets try that.
It dawned to me to use the RF probing technic right after i wrote about the nice signals at lower frequency.
Will try that too.
I know that last pdf, and used it before, only problem was/is that i cannot find the impedance of the 74AC74
ports, some say its 20 Ohm, but in my mind it must be higher (KOhms).
Thanks Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.16, 10:14:40
In series and faster he, that seems to contradict in my mind, so lets try that.
That's because the word "faster" is ambiguous.
Inverters connected in series have a longer collective propagation time, but in the end the risetime of their output is faster (because their gain multiplies and their risetime is limited only by their slew-rate).
In this application, we do not care about the propagation delay (and the phase shift it causes), since it can be calibrated out in the instrument's settings.
Also, we do not need a low output impedance of the sine2square converter because the FG's ExtRef input has a high impedance, so there would be nothing to be gained by paralleling two or more inverters.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.16, 10:14:40
I know that last pdf, and used it before, only problem was/is that i cannot find the impedance of the 74AC14 ports, some say its 20 Ohm, but in my mind it must be higher (kOhms).
The input impedance is determined by the input capacitance of the inverter so it is variable as it depends on frequency just like the impedance of a capacitor, which for 74AC14 is 25pF per input so its impedance is approximately 600Ω @ 10MHz (the 74VHC14 has 10pF input capacitance so its impedance is 1600Ω @ 10MHz).
The 74AC14's output impedance is approximately 73Ω and the 74VHC14's output impedance is approximately 220Ω.
I put a female bnc connector on the 74AC714 input and changed the input cable from the FG (10Mhz @ 3vpp, sine)
to be a bnc to bnc jumper cable, so without the clipleads etc.
74AC14 supply voltage lowered to 3V.
Using the RF probe tips on the probes i measured the input signal (yellow) and output (across a 1K resistor) signal (blue), see screenshots.
Looking much better compared to yesterday.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.16, 15:44:55
I put a female bnc connector on the 74AC714 input and changed the input cable from the FG (10Mhz @ 3vpp, sine) to be a bnc to bnc jumper cable, so without the clipleads etc.
Do you have the calculation of FG's output amplitude set for a 50Ω load ? [ Utility->Ch1Set->Imped->Load (50Ω) ]
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.16, 15:44:55
74AC14 supply voltage lowered to 3V.
So, now the 74AC14 needs 2V
P-P input waveform centered at ½V
CC to switch reliably. But you have only 1.6V
P-P at the input pin of the 74AC14 chip !
So the chip is switching with lower input amplitude than specified. This could lead to instability later - especially if temperature changes...
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.16, 15:44:55
Using the RF probe tips on the probes i measured the input signal (yellow) and output (across a 1K resistor) signal (blue), see screenshots.
Looking much better compared to yesterday.
Yes, but you are on the edge.
On the attached scopeshot, I have extended the rising edges of the blue squarewave with pink lines and I have drawn the lower red horizontal line through the points where these pink lines intersect the yellow sinewave. I have done a similar thing with the falling edges of the blue squarewave and drawn the upper red line.
Note, that the lower red line is skirting the bottoms of the yellow sinewave*. That's how close you are to the switching threshold!
So, consider lowering the supply voltage even further (you can go as low as 2V) or consider using the more sensitive chip, such as the 74AC04 or 74VHC04, which require only 1.2V
P-P input, to switch reliably at 3V supply.
* Note that the upper red line is NOT skirting the tops of the yellow sinewave, thus you do not have a problem there. This is because in the 74AC14 chip, the upper switching threshold is a little closer to ½VCC than the lower switching threshold.
Switched the FG to 50 Ohm (was at highZ).
Lowered the 74AC14 to 2V supply voltage.
FG signal still 10Mhz @ 3Vpp sine wave.
Was thinking on using the (unused here) rear USB plug for its 5v to use as supply voltage for the 74AC14 (pulling 10mA now)
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.16, 17:09:33
Lowered the 74AC14 to 2V supply voltage.
FG signal still 10Mhz @ 3Vpp sine wave.
Yes, the edges of the blue squarewave intersect the yellow sinewave pretty far away from the sinewave's tops - so the input threshold switching is stable now.
We still do not know, whether the impedance of the ExtRef input on the back of your FG, is really 1KΩ. Some adjustment might be needed to find an optimal resistance at the output of the converter (R3), that will yield the least sq.wave distortion at the FG's input.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.16, 17:09:33
Was thinking on using the (unused here) rear USB plug for its 5v to use as supply voltage for the 74AC14 (pulling 10mA now)
Good idea. Add an LM317 adjustable regulator (or similar) with a pot for adjusting between +5V an +2V, put it in a shielded BNC box and be done with it.
I suggest an IC socket for the 74AC14 chip since it has the same pinout as the 74AC04 or 74VHC04 ...in case you want to upgrade later.
P.S.
Below is my sin2sq converter based on 74VHC04 and LDK320A in a small SOT23 package. I kept it in the dead-bug stage because air is a better dielectric than PCB...and I was lazy ;)
I had to put chokes on my supply line (inside the box) because it was picking up EMI and radiating out the square MHz harmonics, at the same time.
Great,
i have a dead bug setup now so i will build it up on a proto pcb using a socket
and a LM317 set to 2V from the rear USB plug.
The 1K impedance will probably be very close as thats their specs, so i don't expect much
problems there (now using a 1K load reistor on the output) but will scope the signal when
its ready to be connected.
Sot23 he, well your eyes are better then your camera then ;D
Itsu
I don't have a camera - I have a plastic thing on my cell phone that pretends to be one.
How is your FG synchronizing with the SA now?
Well, i have not completed my sin2sq converter yet, but presently the FG is running ok with 50 Ohm coax and with the SA sine wave as ext ref input.
I did found out that the FG rear USB B plug has no 5V available, not in PC nor Printer mode.
Same with other (printer) USB B plugs, so i have to find another Vcc source.
There is 3.3V on the green (data) wire, but i guess i cannot use it for pulling 25mA or so.
I have an old Nokia cell phone charger which put out 3.7V dc which i will use probably.
Also building my nano pulser power supply (18V, 12V, 5V, 3V and 200V).
Itsu
Finished my sine2sq converter, running on 2V (via LM317) from a 5.6V wall transformer, see picture.
Measuring the output directly from the out bnc shows a nice square wave, but when attaching a piece of coax
or attaching it to the FG in/out port shows some distortion.
I suspect the used inbetween coax cables are not up to the 10Mhz task or were damaged in earlier nano pulse
(1.8kV) experiments, so have ordered some good UHF 50 Ohm coax.
I have the 74ac14 output pin (pin2) directly attached to the out bnc plug, so without any resistance (50 Ohm/1K).
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.24, 10:51:00
Finished my sine2sq converter, running on 2V (via LM317) from a 5.6V wall transformer, see picture.
Double female BNC sockets ?
I cannot see chokes on the supply line. Am I wrong?
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.24, 10:51:00
I suspect the used in between coax cables are not up to the 10Mhz task or were damaged in earlier nano pulse (1.8kV) experiments...
You can determine the quality of the coax by making a S11 (return loss) or Z<-S11 measurement with a VNA (or with a SA + VSWR bridge) while the end of the coax is terminated with a 50Ω resistor.
Of course, calibrate the instrument first by attaching the 50Ω termination resistor directly to its port1 - you should get a flat trace after the calibration.
Next, insert the coax to be tested between the instrument's port1 and the 50Ω terminating resistor - for an ideal coax the trace should stay flat as all the energy transmitted by the instrument get perfectly realyed to the resistor and absorbed in it (IOW: no energy should get reflected and come back to the instrument).
...any losses in the coax will make the S11 or Z<-S11 trace squiggly. The higher the amplitude of these squiggles, the worse the coax is.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.24, 10:51:00
so have ordered some good UHF 50 Ohm coax.
LMR-240-UF ?
QuoteDouble female BNC sockets ?
Yes.
QuoteI cannot see chokes on the supply line. Am I wrong?
There is a 150uH choke on the + lead, nothing on the - lead.
QuoteLMR-240-UF ?
No, RG174, but your LMR-240-UF seems way better.
Itsu
This is the 10Mhz square wave signal at the input of the FG (via a BNC tee) using an RF probe tip.
The FG accepts it, but its rather different compared to the unloaded output signal from the sine2sq converter,
see post #205 screenshot (blue)
I have a 6dB 50 ohm attenuator at the sine2sq output.
Itsu
Well, that is not surprising because:
- the sin2sq converter has ~73Ω output impedance
- the coax has 50Ω impedance (...or 75Ω )
- the FG has 1kΩ input impedance.
- your scope probe has ???Ω impedance (could be too low).
So you are bound to have some kind of impedance mismatch or the low impedance of the probe is perturbing the signal too much.
How does the sq.wave distortion at the FG's input change, when you put a series resistor at the sin2sq output and vary it? ...without the 6dB attenuator.
P.S.
If varying the series resistor does not help, then maybe this arrangement will work:
SA's output -> 50Ω coax -> 50Ω terminator -> sin2sq -> 75Ω coax -> ~75Ω terminator -> FG's input
The 50Ω terminator can be in the box with the sin2sq converter. The ~75Ω terminator should be adjustable. Take measurements with a Tee at FG's input using a 10MΩ probe with RF probing arrangement (no long ground leads!).
The probe has a 10MOhm impedance.
The used 75 Ohm coax jumper cable shows the below response when using the SA + VSWR bridge.
The used 50 ohm terminator was first normalized and shows a flat response across the frequency range.
I will change the output bnc female socket for a male one so a can loose the output cable (box direct attached to the FG)
Then play around with a 1K series pot at this output to see how it changes the FG input signal.
Thanks Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.25, 14:50:28
The used 75 Ohm coax jumper cable shows the below response when using the SA + VSWR bridge.
Oh yes! Such mess is to be expected when using a 50Ω instrument to measure a 75Ω coax with a and 50Ω termination resistor at the end of it.
However, the sin2sq converter's output impedance is closer to 75Ω, so a 75Ω coax should be a better match for it at the transmitting end.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.25, 14:50:28
The used 50 ohm terminator was first normalized and shows a flat response across the frequency range.
And it should stay that way even if this terminator is measured THROUGH a coax ...if the coax is close to ideal.
You should not see high amplitude squiggles with a good 50Ω coax terminated with a 50Ω resistor.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.25, 14:50:28
I will change the output BNC female socket for a male one so I can lose the output cable (box direct attached to the FG)
Excellent choice ;)
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.25, 14:50:28
Then play around with a 1K series pot at this output to see how it changes the FG input signal.
Looking forward to seeing how the signal changes with the variations of this resistance !
P.S.
In US the female socket is the one, that has a hole at the MOST CENTER part of the connector. In EU, I noticed that people refer to the MOST OUTER part of the connector to make that determination.
I can't help to notice, that the US analogy is closer to real life.
QuoteP.S.
In US the female socket is the one, that has a hole at the MOST CENTER part of the connector. In EU, I noticed that people refer to the MOST OUTER part of the connector to make that determination.
I can't help to notice, that the US analogy is closer to real life.
;D
QuoteLooking forward to seeing how the signal changes with the variations of this resistance !
Ok, using a BNC male output socket and a BNC knee to directly connect the sin2sq box to the FG.
I have a 1K pot in series with the chip output and the bnc and measure with my RF probe across the bnc connection.
It seems that at 123 Ohm the impedance is best matched, see screenshot.
Going through the 1K range from 0 to 1K and back see the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbni3VzLdkg
Guess i put a 120 Ohm fixed resistor inbetween and leave it this way.
Itsu
Hmmm, i received my RG174 50 Ohm coax cable and a 1m piece with bnc connectors shows the following response when using the SA + VSWR bridge with a 50 Ohm bnc terminator see screenshot 1.
Replacing the 50 Ohm bnc terminator with a known good induction free 50 Ohm resistor does not change much.
Doing a SWR measurement shows screenshot 2
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.25, 21:23:40
It seems that at 123 Ohm the impedance is best matched, see screenshot.
Going through the 1K range from 0 to 1K and back see the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbni3VzLdkg
Guess i put a 120 Ohm fixed resistor in between and leave it this way.
Yes, it looks like you are done. Most likely the remaining small imperfections are caused by probing artifacts and the pot's inductance.
Thanks for the video.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.26, 20:48:06
Hmmm, i received my RG174 50 Ohm coax cable and a 1m piece with bnc connectors shows the following response when using the SA + VSWR bridge with a 50 Ohm bnc terminator see screenshot 1.
If you got a flat SWR trace with just the 50Ω termination resistor connected to the measurement port of your instrument, then this result must be accurate.
Below are my measurements of various coaxial cables terminated with a 50Ω resistor. The units on the vertical axis are Ohms of effective impedance.
Effective impedance is related to SWR by Z=SWR*50Ω ...so it is just an SWR scaled by your system impedance Z
0.
Note, that the longer the cable is, the more compressed the ripples are
horizontally :o
FYI:
SWR = (1+|S11|)/(1-|S11|), where S11 is also known as the "Reflection Coefficient" or "Gamma" ...and the Return Loss = 20*Log(1/|S11|). More is here (http://www.spectrum-soft.com/news/fall2009/vswr.shtm) and here (http://www.pilloud.net/op_web/one_port.pdf).The Reflection Coefficient (S11) is small for good matches. "Return Loss" - just the opposite.
In 50Ω systems, the real Reflection Coefficient is:
−1 for shorts ,
Negative for loads < 50Ω,
0 for perfect matches,
Positive for loads > 50Ω,
+1 for open loads.
Thanks, very nice.
Yes, the 50 Ohm terminator was flatlined by the normalisation process, then the coax was inserted.
So the RG174 i have behaves as expected (similar as yours).
But the winner is the LMR240 cable.
Nice to see the 75 Ohm of the RG59 standing out this way.
The LMR240 cable was by far the shortest length i think, followed by the RG174, the RG59 and then the RG58
judging by the number of ripples.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.27, 19:58:12
The LMR240 cable was by far the shortest length i think, followed by the RG174, the RG59 and then the RG58
judging by the number of ripples.
Yes
Re. your sin2sq converter: I noticed that the duty cycle of the output is not 50%.
This is caused by the 74AC14 chip not having its switching thresholds centered evenly around ½VCC.
This will become fixed when you upgrade to the 74xx04 chip.
ok, i have ordered some 74VHC04, so that will improve the signal further.
I have it running now with a fixed 120 Ohm series resistor for a few hours, and looks good / stable.
I build the nanopulser according to the PDF attached below (see diagram taken from pdf).
The pulse across a 50 ohm resistor can be seen in the screenshot.
Voltage on the drain was 200V.
I used my Russian KD226 Diode as the P600M diode in the diagram only produced a 820v pulse.
I still try various other things to improve on the nanopulse, but i have a hard time believing i could
come close to the claimed 2kV @ 2ns pulse mentioned in the pdf.
Itsu
Hmmm, it seems that the capacitor(s) in series with dsr diode D (P600M) are critical.
This C (2n2/10kV and 4n7/10kV) of 6.9nF needs to be around 6.9nF in combination with P600M to produce the highest pulse.
My used 3x paralleled 2n2/3kV ceramic caps (so 6.6nF) seems to be very instable due to heat.
After soldering them in, the P600M produced, like mentioned, only a 820V pulse.
Lateron it suddenly was at 1.5kV then dropping down again to 900V or so.
Heating up those 3 capacitors with my sodering iron close by, changed the capacitance from around 7nF to more then half.
Even touching them with my finger shows a significant drop to way below the needed 6.6nF.
As they also heat up under normal operation it is hard to stabilize them at the needed 6.6nF.
I added a 4th 2.2nF cap parallel and was able by heating up those 4 caps to attain the highest pulse (1.5kV).
I need either some better quality caps or create a temperature controlled setup for those caps.
Another problem is that there is HV noise at both the gate and drain right after they switch which pops up at about 150V and higher on the drain.
This 80V HV gate noise (allthough i have a 18V tvs there) and similar 800V drain noise (allthough i have a 440V tvs) occure with or without the nanopulse present (so even if i disconnect the dsr diode).
Guess its the general MOSFET setup which causes this noise / feedback, so better chokes and decoupling is in order.
Found this pdf using the humble 1N4007 diode as pin diode to switch HV RF loads, to be used lateron:
Itsu
Good work and experiments, Itsu. Thank you for demonstrating this sharp pulser.
What do you intend to do with these very sharp pulses? Do you have an end goal in mind?
Regards
Hi ion,
the idea is as mentioned in post #124 of this thread:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg71665#msg71665
it says:
QuoteMeanwhile back at the ranch.........
Concerning the hunt for the 45.5Mhz NMR response to an iron powdered toroid:
I dusted off my nanopulser and i will try to make it alive again, stable and boxed in.
The idea is to use this nanopulse (± 1KV) as the big gun to be fired to the iron powdered toroid to
see if this will cause any 45.5Mhz NMR response.
One of the problems will be to protect the Spectrum Analyzer / Scope inputs during the pulse, but have it
fully opened for "listening" for the response.
The above attached pdf would be a cheap circuit to try to switch the SA input off and on on the right moment.
Itsu
Busy with some replications on overunity.com, like:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534026/#msg534026
and
https://overunity.com/18210/radiant-power-from-solid-state-tesla-hairpin-circuit/msg533994/#msg533994
For the first one ION made a simulation in LTspice which would be interesting to have for some tuning on the real thing.
ION, you could attach it here if you like, thanks.
Itsu
Dear Itsu
My simulation was crude and maybe not even that accurate, but only a starting point. You can get any output value less than unity by adjusting K. This effectively loosely correlates to the distance between coils.
partzman and poynt are much better at these sims than I am. These guys are my mentors with simulations so maybe they can offer better versions. Perhaps they can figure out a way to sweep the frequency over a small range of interest and log power in the load resistors.
I guess the so called "disruptive" drive circuit (touted by AKing21, RF) that we call an FET driver could also be added.
At any rate I will post the first crude draft and it can be modified or upgraded as needed. I saw no need for the diodes and storage caps as the power could go directly to the 50 ohm resistors, but those can also be added.
Thank you for your diligent work and as always excellent builds.
Regards
P.S. Can anyone explain why there is an offset in the power supplied by V1 ?
Thanks ION,
Its a good start.
i do not see any offset though.
Anyway, i changed the RX circuits to be a series LC (same as the TX) and changed V1 to a pulsed DC square wave
9V 50% duty cycle and removed the 50 Ohm resistor (10 Ohm series resistance).
Unloaded (K = 0.0) i now have some similar voltage as my real circuit across TX L and C (350V) at resonance frequency (1.246mhz).
Itsu
I added a gate driver so the sim is now close to what i have (still no FWBR / buffer cap on the receivers though).
picture shows the sim running with a probe across the R5 resistor.
Itsu
Ion and Itsu,
Just a thought on your current simulations of the RF circuit, your K factor statement as structured isn't accurate as you have specified that the centers between any and all coils are identical. This is impossible with 5 coils equally spaced in an outer circumference with the primary in the center. Without equal spacing of the coils, the K factor statements will become really complicated in order to accurately model the coupling factors.
So, without showing the math solution, the number of divisions needed in the circumference to provide the spacing equal to the radius is N = 2*pi = 6.28. So, 6 coils equally spaced in the circumference is closer to equaling the radius of the circle than does five. This will more than likely not affect the outcome however.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
thanks for the heads up, sounds logical, i did not realize that.
But as you said it will be really complicated to accuratly model them and probably will not affect the outcome much, so will leave it as it is.
Thanks anyway.
Itsu
Well, the weather is horrible at the moment so just for kicks, here is a sim with six secondaries with specs taken from actual coils. The coils are placed tightly together as shown with a minimum but equal distance between centers. This results in a coupling factor K of -.07. Data is also shown for K = -.03 by moving the coils out evenly but still maintaining equal distance between centers which results in a higher output but lower efficiency.
The 1k load resistors on the parallel resonant outputs yield an approximate maximum efficiency with the series resonant input on the primary.
As is seen, the maximum COP with K = -.07 is 1.0789/1.1169 = .966 . With K = -.03 as the coils are moved farther away from the primary, the COP = 5.6009/6.9381 = .807 .
Regards,
Pm
Hi PM,
nicely done, but how do you know the used setup (7 coils) results in the coupling factor of -.07?
And i would of thought that any negative coupling factor would not be possible, at least not in the real world.
Anyway, the cop of 0.966 is very good.
Thanks Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.05.07, 20:26:58
Hi PM,
nicely done, but how do you know the used setup (7 coils) results in the coupling factor of -.07?
And i would of thought that any negative coupling factor would not be possible, at least not in the real world.
Anyway, the cop of 0.966 is very good.
Thanks Itsu
Thanks and good Questions!
First, the coupling factor was determined by using just two identical air coils placed vertically on a flat surface and moved together so the windings just touch. The start of each coil winding is at the top and we'll call that the "dot". Then by using the six secondary/one primary configuration with equal centers between coils, we can tell LtSpice that the coupling factor between any two adjacent coils is a single K factor we calculate and LtSpice will generate the needed coupling matrix between any and all of the coils.
To calculate the K factor, we place the coils as described above and first connect the dot of L1 to an inductance meter (IM), the finish of L1 to the dot of L2, and the finish of L2 to the IM. This results in a measurement of 612uH or Lplus. If this is confusing, picture the coils placed end-to-end and we have them connected in a series inductance aid configuration. We then simply move the coils into the position as described.
We then connect dot of L1 to the dot of L2 and the finish of L1 to the IM with the finish still connected also to the IM. This results in a measurement of 703uH or Lminus. With the coils again pictured end-to-end we now have them connected in a buck configuration.
We will now calculate the mutual coupling using M = (Lplus-Lminus)/4 = (612e-6-703e-6)/4 = -2.275e-5 . From this we can now calculate the coupling using K = M/(L1*L2)^.5 or because L1 = L2 we can use K = M/L1 = -2.275e-5/332e-6 = -.0685 rounding to -.07 .
Changing the K factors to positive does slightly change the numbers so this may all be up for interpretation.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
OK, i understand you calculate the the coupling factor using real coils, then use that found data to use in the SIM.
Thanks for the additional info.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.05.05, 15:49:57
Busy with some replications on overunity.com, like:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534026/#msg534026
and
https://overunity.com/18210/radiant-power-from-solid-state-tesla-hairpin-circuit/msg533994/#msg533994
For the first one ION made a simulation in LTspice which would be interesting to have for some tuning on the real thing.
ION, you could attach it here if you like, thanks.
Itsu
I think i will return soon to the project i was working on (2KV nanopulser to create a NMR response on an iron toroid).
because the 2 project that came inbetween will be dropped soon.
The Master Ivo radiant energy project due to the heavy advertising on his video's, the constant requests for
donations which i do not want to participate in and lately the lack of any continued progress.
The other project due to limited or no progress in finding anything out of the ordinary in my tests.
Itsu
I am trying to tie up some loose ends with my last replication attempt on OU.com
One of the loose end is the suggestion from Tinsel to make the big coil autoresonant so we would not need to retune after each change (add / remove of satellite coils).
It was mentioned here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536609/#msg536609
So i added some zener diodes (5.1V), a 10K resistor and an antenna to my gate driver, see diagram.
What i want to see is to start the oscillation in the big coil tank circuit using the FG, then when it oscillates disconnect the FG signal and have the gate driver oscillate at
the tank circuit resonant frequency (193KHz) via the pickup antenna.
But it does not work that way right now, so i wonder if this basic setup has a flaw somewhere before looking for some other problems.
Itsu
Try swapping the capacitor and coil? Then measure both ends of coil and look for higher voltage as a sign of resonance.
You may need to also add a tiny amount of resistance to ground on your gate drive input, as the internal capacitance might be holding the gate always-on. Sometimes the gates will trigger in a very specifc voltage around 1-2v.
As a test you can try driving an LED and slowly sweep voltage across the input of the gate driver to see at what voltage the LED flips, then scope and bias the antenna around that voltage 'knee' with a resistor.
Looks like it could be a very efficient resonator. :)
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.07.20, 20:31:27
I am trying to tie up some loose ends with my last replication attempt on OU.com
One of the loose end is the suggestion from Tinsel to make the big coil autoresonant so we would not need to retune after each change (add / remove of satellite coils).
It was mentioned here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536609/#msg536609
So i added some zener diodes (5.1V), a 10K resistor and an antenna to my gate driver, see diagram.
What i want to see is to start the oscillation in the big coil tank circuit using the FG, then when it oscillates disconnect the FG signal and have the gate driver oscillate at
the tank circuit resonant frequency (193KHz) via the pickup antenna.
But it does not work that way right now, so i wonder if this basic setup has a flaw somewhere before looking for some other problems.
Itsu
Good day ITSU
Take a look at the attached schematic: It is a self_resonant driver using a CD4046BE & a NE555 timer IC. It is NOT PLL, as the raw output from PC1 (phase comparator 1) is used to switch a CD4001 (to produce a complimentary drive signal).
I have attached some scope shots of from the running device. It is crude but effective and will lock onto a signal from the ground line (using a CT) of a Karcher or Tesla coil as well.
See attached photo of device as well. In operating photo, the self-resonant device is switching a H-bridge which is running a large air coil at resonance.
It is a quick build and not very demanding....... you probably already have all the parts on your bench.
I like the idea of your 2KV diode pulser.... what is the fastest frequency it will operate at?
Take care, peace
lost_bro
Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.07.20, 21:29:37
Try swapping the capacitor and coil? Then measure both ends of coil and look for higher voltage as a sign of resonance.
You may need to also add a tiny amount of resistance to ground on your gate drive input, as the internal capacitance might be holding the gate always-on. Sometimes the gates will trigger in a very specifc voltage around 1-2v.
As a test you can try driving an LED and slowly sweep voltage across the input of the gate driver to see at what voltage the LED flips, then scope and bias the antenna around that voltage 'knee' with a resistor.
Looks like it could be a very efficient resonator. :)
Thanks, the LC is resonating when driven by the FG, i have at 12V input on the gate driver
some 3.3KV when tuned at the 193KHz frequency of the FG and loaded by my HV probe.
But when disconnecting the FG it stops oscillating for now.
Not sure what you mean by "holding the gate always-on.." and "the gates will trigger.." as
i have no real gate (MOSFET).
I will try to add some resistance.
Itsu
Quote from: lost_bro on 2019.07.20, 22:34:43
Good day ITSU
Take a look at the attached schematic: It is a self_resonant driver using a CD4046BE & a NE555 timer IC. It is NOT PLL, as the raw output from PC1 (phase comparator 1) is used to switch a CD4001 (to produce a complimentary drive signal).
I have attached some scope shots of from the running device. It is crude but effective and will lock onto a signal from the ground line (using a CT) of a Karcher or Tesla coil as well.
See attached photo of device as well. In operating photo, the self-resonant device is switching a H-bridge which is running a large air coil at resonance.
It is a quick build and not very demanding....... you probably already have all the parts on your bench.
I like the idea of your 2KV diode pulser.... what is the fastest frequency it will operate at?
Take care, peace
lost_bro
Hi Lost_bro
thanks for the diagram and pictures, looking fine as always. O0
I did use similar circuits to drive kachers and SSTC's using 555's etc. so i know they work.
The setup i use now is new to me (using a gate driver chip as autoresonator) so not shure it could work.
Concerning the 2KV nano pulser, yes thats a work in progress, but this one is designed to
work at 1 second pulse repetition frequency, so very slow.
The circuit used for it though (post #225 above) says in the pdf it can run up to 50KHz, but i doubt it.
I have build nano pulsers before, but at 20KHz the MOSFET gets hot very quick.
Itsu
Seen TK his response on OU.com and the little diagram.
Will try to work on that tonight, Thanks.
I still have my username on OU.com, so can login and post (if i want) and do PM's, both send and receive.
Please all, enough said about Itsu overthere, i am monitoring only there and working from here for the time being.
As said, i can send and receive PM's there, so just send one if you feel the need.
Itsu
Good day Itsu
Here is a tried and true 'FET driver' auto-resonant feedback driver circuit from the coilers.
The driver output is run thru a GDT to avoid the HV from frying the FET driver IC.
The 555 interrupter is used to 'ring' the secondary and start the feedback loop and of course interrupt the driver for pulsed output.
This is similar to the above 'antenna' feedback driver.
take care, peace
lost_bro
Thanks Lost,
i did build something like this last year, see diagram of the same guy i guess.
It still is laying around here somewhere gathering dust for now.
Itsu
I modified my gate driver to comply to TK's autoresonance circuit shown above and it seems to work nicely O0
With the FG active there is a stronger signal, but thats probably due to the antenna length / matching.
This autoresonance setup enables me to load the tank without the need for retuning after change in load.
Many thanks to TK and of course to Reiyuki and Lost_bro.
video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T06x4cDHEEQ
New diagram of my setup now (BE AWARE, THE LOWER DIODE WAS WRONG, NOW CORRECTED!!)
Itsu
I got a notification that the bottom 1N60 diode in MY diagram was wrong.
I have now corrected that, the live circuit had the diode the correct way around, so the video
is of the correct situation.
Itsu
It seems that with the FG driving the circuit, i have a higher tank amplitude then without the FG (1.4KVpp versus 960Vpp) which i expected to be the other way around.
So i scoped the input to the gate driver (at the junction of the switch S1 and the 50 Ohm resistor R1) see below diagram.
Below are the 2 situations, first screenshot with the FG connected, second screenshot without the FG connected.
Yellow is the tank voltage (probe not connected)
Purple is the input signal (S1 - R1).
So allthough we have a higher input signal with the FG disconnected, the tank voltage is lower (13.5Vpp versus 7Vpp).
Could it be that the rise time of the input signal is the problem/cause?
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Try to reduce the 100 kOhm R2 resistor to as low as possible so that the RF voltage amplitude (pink channel) could be reduced towards the 7 Vpp or so value.
Also if you have a few 1N4148 diodes, make a series string from say 5 or 6 and clamp the RF voltage across R2 and see whether it improves things.
Gyula
Thanks Gyula,
glad to see you here still offering your knowledge O0
I will see if i can follow your suggestions, the little gate driver print was not meant to
have so many changes, so i will try a breadboard approach first.
Itsu
Got some additional comments to use different diodes or a hysteresis amplifier or Schmitt Trigger inverter stage (2)
to shape up the input signal but it seems the IXDD614 gate driver i use already has a Schmitt Trigger input.
So i will go for using Gyula his suggestions and/or changing the diodes to 1n4148/1n914 types, or perhaps Schottky 1n5819 or similar.
Itsu
Gyula,
i tried severall resistors parallel to R2, but even a 10K parallel still leaves about 12Vpp on the pink
channel (input signal, no FG).
But adding 6x 1N4148 across this R2 (so now about 10K) gives the result as shown in the screenshot.
Tank amplitude (yellow) slightly lower then with FG (1.3KV versus 1.4KV) and the input signal now
clamped to 3.8V (6x 0.633V), see pink vertical lines delta data, top right corner.
So i guess much more acceptable.
Itsu
Okay Itsu, thanks for showing the results and I am pleased you approached the peak voltage pretty close to that of the FG gave.
Gyula
Yes, i am pleased too as now i can use this stable autoresonance circuit to investigate further on the only anomaly seen during my testing, which was the 2 horizontal satellite coils
getting their leds brighter when inserting another satellite coil vertically inbetween the Big coil and these horizontal coils.
Could this be the sympathetic resonance being mentioned??
I cannot link to my post on OU.com directly somehow, so use this link to get to the top of the page, then a few posts down (post #797 today):
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/975/
My linked video there showing the effect here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY
A possible explanation done by partzman here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536448/#msg536448
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Yes, by making the TX coil autoresonating while loaded coils are being coupled to it will make tests easier (number of variables is reduced).
With small ferrite core pieces now the satellite coils can be tuned much easier to the actual TX frequency where always the maximum energy is radiated.
What pm mentioned with "maintaning the proper dot relationship" is also a good step, to be investigated.
Your question on sympathetic resonance I think could be better answered by the use of several (more than 3) RX coils, all in mutual coupling with each other, so what we see in your linked video is not likely the sympathetic resonance case yet: it may be a 'mutual resonance pulling' between the 3 coupled RX coils to a frequency closer to the TX coil frequency (which may have also been pulled away just a little).
I also noticed that in the page you linked to, the direct links of the first 5 posts in page 66 directs to the top of page 65, from posts after the 5th posts the direct links are already ok. Likely either a forum software 'glitch' or a few posts have been deleted.
Gyula
Thanks Gyula,
will follow up on the "sympathetic resonance" thingy later as right now we have an all time record
high temperature here with >40°C (>104°F).
Perhaps later this weekend.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.07.25, 07:57:39
Thanks Gyula,
will follow up on the "sympathetic resonance" thingy later as right now we have an all time record
high temperature here with >40°C (>104°F).
Perhaps later this weekend.
Itsu
Lol
Sorry Itsu,i shouldn't laugh,but 40*C is a normal summers day here in Western Australia.
For a couple of the summer month's 42-44*C is nothing out of the ordinary.
Further north,46-50*c is quite common.
I guess if your use to cooler weather,then 40*C would be very hot.
Brad
Hi Itsu,
Just have it your way and stay 'cool'. 8)
Gyula
Hello Guys:
It took a while to get accepted here, but, I'm finally in like Flynn.
itsu, thanks for all your help. If there is anything that I can do for you, just let me know.
Good to see this thread moving nicely, I hope that I can add my two cents worth, as well.
NickZ
Hi Nick,
thanks, good to see you here, be welcom.
Hopefully i get some measurements done this weekend.
Itsu
Quote from: NickZ on 2019.07.25, 22:25:36
Hello Guys:
It took a while to get accepted here, but, I'm finally in like Flynn.
itsu, thanks for all your help. If there is anything that I can do for you, just let me know.
Good to see this thread moving nicely, I hope that I can add my two cents worth, as well.
NickZ
Welcome aboard from very hot Spain
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: NickZ on 2019.07.25, 22:25:36
Hello Guys:
It took a while to get accepted here, but, I'm finally in like Flynn.
itsu, thanks for all your help. If there is anything that I can do for you, just let me know.
Good to see this thread moving nicely, I hope that I can add my two cents worth, as well.
NickZ
Hi Nick,
Welcome. Good to see that you have broke free from the asylum. O0
Quote from: NickZ on 2019.07.25, 22:25:36
Hello Guys:
It took a while to get accepted here, but, I'm finally in like Flynn.
itsu, thanks for all your help. If there is anything that I can do for you, just let me know.
Good to see this thread moving nicely, I hope that I can add my two cents worth, as well.
NickZ
Hi Nick,
Welcome and I wish you success with good health.
Gyula
welcome to Nick Z
your example and standards at Stefan's have been as a beacon there [and inspire me]
{RE: looping for proof or very obvious Gain ]
I hope the forum can get back on track there,too many good folks in the wings over there.
respectfully
Chet K
PS
Not looking to fill itsu's bench with discussions on this event at Stefans
just speaking from my heart ..and I know this has been very Hard for itsu and others.
Quote from: NickZ on 2019.07.25, 22:25:36
Hello Guys:
It took a while to get accepted here, but, I'm finally in like Flynn.
itsu, thanks for all your help. If there is anything that I can do for you, just let me know.
Good to see this thread moving nicely, I hope that I can add my two cents worth, as well.
NickZ
Hi and welcome and I respect your videos.
Guys:
Wow, I have never had such a nice welcome, thanks to all for such a nice reception here.
There may be some interesting information concerning isolating the input source from the output load, and three coil set up by Dr. Stiffler.
There may be some relation to what is going on here, with the current type of replication being worked on.
https://youtu.be/lxRbckLedjU
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.07.24, 15:33:57
My linked video there showing the effect here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY
Hi itsu,
I was wondering what are you busy with and here you are :)
Tesla's longtitudal transmission is always fun to play with and it becomes even more interesting when you have several receiver coils.
Each receiving coil is replicating field and re-transmitting waves so the transmitting coil is also receiving feedback.
As you have base setup already you may explore D. Smith idea and see what you can get in similar setup like he did with 1 trasmitter and 3 receiver coils. The results would be interesting to see.
P.S> Welcome to the forum NickZ!
Cheers!
Quote from: T-1000 on 2019.07.26, 15:16:22
Hi itsu,
I was wondering what are you busy with and here you are :)
Tesla's longtitudal transmission is always fun to play with and it becomes even more interesting when you have several receiver coils.
Each receiving coil is replicating field and re-transmitting waves so the transmitting coil is also receiving feedback.
As you have base setup already you may explore D. Smith idea and see what you can get in similar setup like he did with 1 trasmitter and 3 receiver coils. The results would be interesting to see.
P.S> Welcome to the forum NickZ!
Cheers!
Hi T,
yes here i am.
Looking for interesting results to see?
Take a look here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536598/#msg536598
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.07.26, 15:24:56
Take a look here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536598/#msg536598
Itsu
Looks like I missed that.
Few things instantly in my mind - what happens if you do in pure Tesla's way of driving transmitter? When the primary coil input is driven by spikes (duty cycle less than 10%, the driving singal is interrupted) and creating resonance between top load of secondary (missing in your setup) and the ground line (no wave nodes/antinodes in middle of secondary coil). By idea the input power should drop while maintaining peak reactive power in resonance on the secondary coil. And when reaching certain secondary voltage the top load should start interacting with ions in air. Just need to be not too much (when it starts arcing).
T1000,
Yes, i think you missed that as the setup you now describe is different from what i was trying to replicate.
There is no primary on the transmitter coil and also no top load on the secondary (indeed missing).
Could be a nice new project, but at the moment i have some loose ends on this present replication which i want to tie up first.
Itsu
Quote from: NickZ on 2019.07.25, 22:25:36
Hello Guys:
It took a while to get accepted here, but, I'm finally in like Flynn.
itsu, thanks for all your help. If there is anything that I can do for you, just let me know.
Good to see this thread moving nicely, I hope that I can add my two cents worth, as well.
NickZ
Good day NickZ
Good to have you aboard.....
take care, peace
lost_bro
Itsu,
I finally had a chance to go check your video and setup for RF's "device" verification.
Wow, you really went all out! Very well done as usual. It is a pity that there wasn't any acknowledgement from RF himself, until I guess much later. And apparently Aking, the one supporter of Rick's missed it too!
Anyway, you put a lot of work into that replication, and blows away everything Rick has shown thus far. Well done.
I know you're tying up loose ends atm, so carry on maestro.
Quote from: T-1000 on 2019.07.26, 15:16:22
Hi itsu,
I was wondering what are you busy with and here you are :)
Tesla's longtitudal transmission is always fun to play with and it becomes even more interesting when you have several receiver coils.
Each receiving coil is replicating field and re-transmitting waves so the transmitting coil is also receiving feedback.
As you have base setup already you may explore D. Smith idea and see what you can get in similar setup like he did with 1 trasmitter and 3 receiver coils. The results would be interesting to see.
P.S> Welcome to the forum NickZ!
Cheers!
This is the pic that caused a controversy. Rick uses 3 watt mr16s and he says that each is lit up to approx 1/2 watt. Also note the distance from the furthest mr16 and the transmitter and remember the inverse square law.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.27, 00:18:55
Itsu,
I finally had a chance to go check your video and setup for RF's "device" verification.
Wow, you really went all out! Very well done as usual. It is a pity that there wasn't any acknowledgement from RF himself, until I guess much later. And apparently Aking, the one supporter of Rick's missed it too!
Anyway, you put a lot of work into that replication, and blows away everything Rick has shown thus far. Well done.
I know you're tying up loose ends atm, so carry on maestro.
Thanks poynt,
yes, i shows me that what everybody (well most) was saying would happen, did happen.
It was my 3th setup (earlier ones with smaller coils and/or higher frequency) and
all 3 attemps did show similar behaviour.
Now indeed going for the only anomaly seen (inbetween coil increases power transfer) and which was
explained by Partzman among others.
Itsu
I repeated my inbetween coil experiment which showed some increase in power in 2 horizontally stacked
satellite coils when a 3th vertical satellite coil was placed midway between the 2 horizontally coils.
It was noted by some and reacted upon as:
A.king21
QuoteRick: Itsu's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY
3 minutes in - inserting a relay coil causes output to go UP and input to go DOWN.
WHY ARE WE IGNORING THIS!!!
It's like the forum has Cognitive dissonance
Rick
QuoteYeah I saw that. So multiply that by 500 coils that are better positioned.
Here the results from my new tests:
unloaded input: 12.10v x 161.3mA = 1951mW
loaded with 2x horizontal coils 12.11V x 153.2mA = 1855mW -
--------
96mW less input
Power in the 2 horizontal coils (P=U²/R):
3.43²/10000 = 1.17mW
3.25²/10000 = 1.05mW +
---------
2.22mW
Then we insert the vertical coil and we have as new input 12.10V x 141.8mA = 1716mW
the new power in the 2 horizontal coils is now:
6.46²/10000 = 4.17mW
6.01²/10000 = 3.61mW +
-------
7.78mW
So we gain 7.78 - 2.22 = 5.56mW.
The vertical coil consumes 19²/10000 = 36.1mW
Difference of the inputs 1855mW - 1716mW = 139mW
Removing the 2 horizontal coils the vertical coil now produces
23²/10000 = 52.9mW at a new input of 12.1V x 138.3mA = 1673mW
video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59a4pNKcEDU
This does not explain what the gain mechanism is, but very probably partzman had a good one
saying that it could be a negative coupling factor being transformed by the vertical coil into a
positive coupling factor:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536448/#msg536448
If wanted i can go measuring the mutual inductances of the 2 horizontal and vertical coils to come
up with the coupling factor.
Itsu
Good work Itsu! O0
Actually there's nothing magic about the negative mutual coupling in this context. What it means is that as we move a receiver coil from on top of the transmitter coil to a horizontal position beside the transmitter coil, the coupling moves from positive coupling thru zero coupling to negative coupling with the referenced dot polarities of each coil. IOW, the phase and amplitude of the receiver coil will change in reference to the transmitter coil during this movement.
Pm
Thanks PM,
i can see that happening yes, but for some it still seems magic, thus OU.
Perhaps i will take some time to dive into the mutual inductance and coupling factor formula's to see if this can be calculated against my measured inductances.
Itsu
Got a comments via PM from Seaad who pointed to a video from RF in which he speaks about adding a metal ground-plate.
Ground connection at the "right" side of the secondaries!
I still not have the stomach to view those video's, so cannot comment on those tests.
He (seaad) also pointed to adding coils/loads in the middle of the Big coil which supposedly could make the input amperage to go lower and even beyond zero!
Well, that i could test by putting in 1 satellite coil with a 1K resistor (else the voltage would go above the 50V buffer cap) in the big coil.
Indeed when putting in the satellite coil into the middle of the big coil, the input drops dramatically so that i could not use the auto resonance setup, it just stops.
So using the FG i can see the input drops from unloaded (12.14V @ 170mA = 2W) to
12.21V x 9.4mA = 114.7mW while the satellite coil consumes 7.4V² / 1000 = 54.7mW
Adding a similar second satellite coil inside, the input now further drops to
12.20V x 5.8mA = 70.7mW while the satellite coils consume each 2.9V² / 1000 = 8.41mW (16.82 total).
So the same thing happens as with the 10 coil test, the more load, the less input and the lesser the coils outputs but they probably never cross the line.
Itsu
Itsu et al,
After giving this some thought, my opinion is that the input power drop and increased "output power" seen when adding coils to the setup, is caused by power factor changes taking place.
Perhaps this setup starts off with a very low power factor, and adding in various other loads increases the power factor for better energy transfer, just like the big boys do with the Grid Power system.
Poynt,
so that should be measureable by looking at the phase (change) of the V and I in the big coil like here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536525/#msg536525
Itsu
Yes. :)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.07.29, 02:35:04
Itsu et al,
After giving this some thought, my opinion is that the input power drop and increased "output power" seen when adding coils to the setup, is caused by power factor changes taking place.
Perhaps this setup starts off with a very low power factor, and adding in various other loads increases the power factor for better energy transfer, just like the big boys do with the Grid Power system.
Could it be that the inductance value of the primary coil changes when loaded secondary coils are placed nearby ?
At these high frequencies,a very small change in inductance value would make a big difference.
It would be good if Itsu could test this.
Get an inductance value of the primary coil(TX) without the loaded secondary coils(RX) near it,then place the loaded secondary coils around the primary,and see if the primaries inductance value changes.
Brad
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.07.28, 19:26:04
Got a comments via PM from Seaad who pointed to a video from RF in which he speaks about adding a metal ground-plate.
Ground connection at the "right" side of the secondaries!
I still not have the stomach to view those video's, so cannot comment on those tests.
He (seaad) also pointed to adding coils/loads in the middle of the Big coil which supposedly could make the input amperage to go lower and even beyond zero!
Well, that i could test by putting in 1 satellite coil with a 1K resistor (else the voltage would go above the 50V buffer cap) in the big coil.
Indeed when putting in the satellite coil into the middle of the big coil, the input drops dramatically so that i could not use the auto resonance setup, it just stops.
So using the FG i can see the input drops from unloaded (12.14V @ 170mA = 2W) to
12.21V x 9.4mA = 114.7mW while the satellite coil consumes 7.4V² / 1000 = 54.7mW
Adding a similar second satellite coil inside, the input now further drops to
12.20V x 5.8mA = 70.7mW while the satellite coils consume each 2.9V² / 1000 = 8.41mW (16.82 total).
So the same thing happens as with the 10 coil test, the more load, the less input and the lesser the coils outputs but they probably never cross the line.
Itsu
Itsu
What is the power dissipated by the big coil,which would be the resistance value of the coil,and the current flowing through it?.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.29, 14:12:04
Itsu
What is the power dissipated by the big coil,which would be the resistance value of the coil,and the current flowing through it?.
Brad
Supercooling could improve the number by reducing the coils resistance losses by close to 8 times.
Is that why you're asking?
Luc
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.29, 14:07:10
Could it be that the inductance value of the primary coil changes when loaded secondary coils are placed nearby ?
At these high frequencies,a very small change in inductance value would make a big difference.
It would be good if Itsu could test this.
Get an inductance value of the primary coil(TX) without the loaded secondary coils(RX) near it,then place the loaded secondary coils around the primary,and see if the primaries inductance value changes.
Brad
Hi Brad,
well i tested it, but the inductance of the big coil does not change, it stays 2.3mH with or without the 2 satellite coils inside.
Itsu
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.29, 14:12:04
Itsu
What is the power dissipated by the big coil,which would be the resistance value of the coil,and the current flowing through it?.
Brad
Brad, i don't know.
Here the data of my big coil:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534327/#msg534327
former 16cm diameter
1mm diam wire (AWG #18)
145 turns spanning 15.5cm, so coil is almost square.
Measured:
Inductance 2.3mH and Q 98 @ 100Khz
DC resistance 1.7 Ohm
Series capacitor is 2x 35-345pF air variable paralleled.
Measured:
51-684pF.
Resonance tuned to 180Khz (caps slightly below half way).So 1.7 Ohm, but i did not measure the current in the coil (you mean in the tankcircuit during resonance?).
Will try to measure tonight.
Itsu
some more measurements with 1satellite coil INSIDE:
Unloaded situation:
gate driver input 12.11V @ 176.4mA
screenshot 1 shows:
yellow pp voltage across var.cap
green current returning to gate driver
red math function yellow x green
Loaded with 1 satellite coils inside (with 2 coils signals are too low for proper measurements):
gate driver input 12.21V @ 9.3mA
screenshot 2 shows:
yellow pp voltage across var.cap
green current returning to gate driver
red math function yellow x green
Screenshot 3 shows same as screenshot 2 but more cycles on scope for more accuracy.
Its hard to get a stable picture on the scope as signals are marginal in the last 2 screenshots.
But we see that the V and I phase differences stay around 89°.
The voltage and current however just collapses.
Could this not be due to the coil Q collapses?
Edit, added the scope measurements points diagram
Itsu
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.07.29, 14:07:10
Could it be that the inductance value of the primary coil changes when loaded secondary coils are placed nearby ?
At these high frequencies,a very small change in inductance value would make a big difference.
It would be good if Itsu could test this.
Get an inductance value of the primary coil(TX) without the loaded secondary coils(RX) near it,then place the loaded secondary coils around the primary,and see if the primaries inductance value changes.
Brad
Hi Brad,
Rick showed in his video that one of the receiver coils was wound on a ferrite rod and he simply put it into the big red TX coil and this invariably changed the TX coil inductance of course but due to the several other receiver coils nearby the loaded Q of the TX coil must have been at a low value already (like say 50-60). This then involved a flat and not sharp resonance curve for the TX tank circuit, the LED bulbs brightnesses could have changed but a little for such certain inductance increase the ferrite rod caused to the TX coil.
In Itsu's case with his air cored coils here the detuning effect is surely much less and he could not notice it with the means he has but nevertheless must exist. Putting copper as a 'core' into (or close to) an air core coil usually reduces inductance a little. The resolution of his L meter should discern a few maybe some 10 uH inductance change when he measures the 2.3 mH TX coil.
Another note: We need to consider that the output voltage hence the output current of the gate driver dynamically changes as the series resonant impedance of the TX circuit changes. The latter increases as more and more RX circuits are coupled to the TX coil. The output impedance of the driver IC forms a voltage divider with the resonant TX tank impedance and this latter is the lower member of the voltage divider, the output impedance forms the upper member of the divider. As the tank impedance changes by the RX circuits coupled, so does the output current and voltage taken from the gate driver. We need to see this process when evaluating behaviour and results.
Gyula
Got some info from Seaad via OU.com in which he asks to measure some other points using the big coil with a satellite coil inside.
He send the 2 below diagrams which shows the new scope measurement points and the swap of the L and C of the big coil series arrangement.
So L is now grounded at 1 side instead of C.
This setup also uses a 1 Ohm csr instead of a current probe.
But it seems to introduce some nasty spikes i did not see before.
Not sure they are caused by the csr or the L/C swap.
I toke 1 measurement like shown in diagram 2 (so voltage across the Gate Driver) see screenshot 1
Input into the gate driver (with FG drive) was:
12.19V x 8mA = 97mW
See the nasty spikes on the blue (current) trace, which makes it hard to get a clear display.
More tomorrow, Itsu
Itsu,
In Seaad's setup, the glitching is due to the Cr connection to the high speed device driver. The proper connection is as you had in your previous tests and will measure more accurately. IOW, Cr should connect to ground and Lr to the driver. The overall operation will be the same.
Regards,
Pm
Thanks PM,
i thought so, as i tried the csr before in the other L C setup without glitches.
I will switch back to that setup still using the csr.
Itsu
To be complete i also measured the voltage across L as seen in the first diagram above.
Also here we see the distorted signal in the yellow sine wave (voltage across L) and the spikes
in the blue (current) signal.
Very difficult to get accurate measurements this way, so i will revert back to the old L C situation.
Itsu
Since 11:45 this morning i am running my big coil with the 10 satellite coils (paralleled) output
fed back into the 12v 7ah driving battery.
The auto resonance did not kick in, so running from the FG (other battery operated).
started at 12.40V and 94ma so the input picture current was disturbed by me when taking the picture.
Lets see how long it runs......
Itsu
Hi Itsu.
Your workmanship is exceptional !! O0
I'm keeping my fingers crossed....
" Kippers " for breakfast?? ;)
Cheers Graham.
Thanks Graham,
not looking great though, after 4 hours in the run, the voltage at 15:45 is:
12.32V @ 93.7mA
Itsu
After another 4 hours, at 19:45, the battery voltage has dropped further to 12.27V @ 93.6mA.
Itsu
After a total of 24 hours, so at 11:45 this morning, the battery voltage has dropped to 12.08v @ 93.2mA
It seems that the Heaviside current is not able to stir up the chemical soup in my LA battery, at least not where i live.
Perhaps they have more luck in Germany.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.02, 10:50:50
After a total of 24 hours, so at 11:45 this morning, the battery voltage has dropped to 12.08v @ 93.2mA
It seems that the Heaviside current is not able to stir up the chemical soup in my LA battery, at least not where i live.
Perhaps they have more luck in Germany.
Itsu
It will only work if Rick is there C.C
Brad
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.02, 10:50:50
After a total of 24 hours, so at 11:45 this morning, the battery voltage has dropped to 12.08v @ 93.2mA
It seems that the Heaviside current is not able to stir up the chemical soup in my LA battery, at least not where i live.
Perhaps they have more luck in Germany.
Itsu
So.... No Kippers just a Red, oops raw Herring then?
Cheers Graham.
The electro-chemical properties of the Lead-Acid Battery which
enable it to produce a Terminal Voltage at varying states of
Discharge and Partial Sulfation which is higher than "normal"
has led many a Tinkerer astray. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-162.html#post319793)
Which explains why when a Charged Capacitor is used to
power Overunity Circuitry in place of the Lead-Acid Battery
the "overunity" doesn't manifest or show up.
I cannot recall which member here introduced the term
"Tinkerer" to usage but it seems a far more accurate
descriptor than "Experimenter" or "Builder." :) :D ;) 8)
The One Thing that claimed "Overunity" Circuits seem to
have in common is the Lead-Acid Battery. Without it they
just don't seem to "work."
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.08.02, 11:30:55
It will only work if Rick is there C.C
Brad
Well, i won't invite him to come overhere ^-^
Itsu
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.08.02, 14:53:31
So.... No Kippers just a Red, oops raw Herring then?
Cheers Graham.
Right Graham, raw (salted) herring the Dutch way. O0
Itsu
Quote from: muDped on 2019.08.02, 15:07:58
The electro-chemical properties of the Lead-Acid Battery which
enable it to produce a Terminal Voltage at varying states of
Discharge and Partial Sulfation which is higher than "normal"
has led many a Tinkerer astray. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-162.html#post319793)
Which explains why when a Charged Capacitor is used to
power Overunity Circuitry in place of the Lead-Acid Battery
the "overunity" doesn't manifest or show up.
I cannot recall which member here introduced the term
"Tinkerer" to usage but it seems a far more accurate
descriptor than "Experimenter" or "Builder". :) :D ;) 8)
Right MuDped, this was shown once more.....
Itsu
Guess i am done with this Big coil / satellite coils setup.
I will shelf it for now untill someone (in Germany?) shows where i went wrong.
Thanks all for your "thinking along".
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Thank you for all your efforts on this! O0
Gyula
Yes, thank you Itsu for stepping up to do the excellent replication. It is unfortunate that the claimant made no attempt at helping or providing positive encouragement.
I setup the circuit as shown in the diagram below which was confirmed by Aking.21 to be the correct one he has used.
The 3,3kVpp on the junction L and Cvar drops to about 30Vpp when attaching the lead to the FWBR / battery.
The charge battery started with 12.83V and the current into it is about 2.25mA.
Running about 1 hour now shows no increase in voltage yet, nor does any temperature increase / decrease was noted on the battery / battery terminals.
Guess i have to leave it running some days to "condition" the battery for use of the "Heavisite current".
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.09, 20:29:02
I setup the circuit as shown in the diagram below which was confirmed by Aking.21 to be the correct one he has used.
The 3,3kVpp on the junction L and Cvar drops to about 30Vpp when attaching the lead to the FWBR / battery.
The charge battery started with 12.83V and the current into it is about 2.25mA.
Running about 1 hour now shows no increase in voltage yet, nor does any temperature increase / decrease was noted on the battery / battery terminals.
Guess i have to leave it running some days to "condition" the battery for use of the "Heavisite current".
Itsu
You can ask Grumage about capacitor conditioning. That will give you some insight. It's when you can remove the input and the device runs by itself.
I recently replicated my experiment and took a video. After half an hour of self running I got bored and ended the experiment. I will only show it in secret.
Aking.21,
it seems to me your are constantly "moving the goal posts".
Earlier you mentioned that capacitors are no good for your type of setup (heavisite current etc.)
and i should use batteries.
Now i am using a battery and now you mention "capacitor conditioning" which can run a device by itself.
What is it please?
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.10, 13:44:03
Aking.21,
it seems to me your are constantly "moving the goal posts".
Earlier you mentioned that capacitors are no good for your type of setup (heavisite current etc.)
and i should use batteries.
Now i am using a battery and now you mention "capacitor conditioning" which can run a device by itself.
What is it please?
Itsu
It is both.
EDIT: There are 2 different processes going on. The Heavyside component is always present. If you look at a a cross section of the wire - the magnetic field consists of concentric circles surrounding the wire. The dielectric field is like the spokes of a wheel going out from the wire. This comprises the Heavyside component which is trapped by the plates of the battery acting like capacitors. Works better at HV and HF as the magnetic field increases exponentially with respect to these two factors.(HF and HV)
Conditioning in batteries is when you stop charging and the batteries continue to rise in voltage.
Capacitor conditioning: ask Grumage.
EDIT: The battery conditioning takes up to 12 hours to see. The capacitor conditioning likewise.
I have done extensive research on this process which was first taught to me by Dave Lawton who is a protigee of Harold Aspden.
Dave Lawton failed at first to replicate the Stanley Meyer process from the patent. After extensive testing the device suddenly worked and produced masses of HHO far in excess of the normal input required.
He investigated the effect and concluded that the conditioning process created a nano coating on the water capacitor which caused it to go quasi superconductive. Dave Lawton also uses a phase locked loop to keep the device in resonance
Here is Dave Lawton's video of the water capacitor when conditioned https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJGZ_uHgu5U
Ok, so conditioning the battery is a must for my present circuit.
Up till now the charge battery still sits at 12.83v while loading with 2.21mA.
Please spare me your hearsay stories as i only am interested in replicating what You have presented.
The load of the battery via the FWBR has pulled the resonance of the big coil way down to almost non existing.
Itsu
Hi Itsu
when you are done with Rick's free energy stuff,maybe you would like to try some real wireless energy transfer systems.
Here is a video of some of Davhav's setup,s.
He is/was a member here,but i have not heard from him in some time.
Anyway,check out his simple tuning method,and the power he can transfer wirelessly
He builds the best pulse motors i have ever seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpVLnmdr2k
added this one as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqgjeN3Jnj8
Brad
Thanks Brad,
indeed, his build are awesome, and he presents it in a nice and clear way with crisp video.
I would hope more people would do it like that.
Itsu
concerning the charging of a battery using the HV of the big coil, it went nowhere, so i removed the 3 satellite coils surrounding the big coil.
Now some more HV is available to charge the battery as the charge current went up from 2.2mA to now 6.53mA.
The voltage went up in a few hours from 12.83V to now 12.87V.
Hopefully this extra power is enough to start "conditioning" the battery.
By the way, the input to the big coil / gate driver is now 12.59V @ 12mA (was 7mA with the 3 satellite coils).
Itsu
Running overnight, the charge battery is now at 12.92V (@ 6.48mA) and the primary battery at 12.56V (@ 12mA).
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.11, 09:03:20
Running overnight, the charge battery is now at 12.92V (@ 6.48mA) and the primary battery at 12.56V (@ 12mA).
Itsu
So it seems like an ok result, but of course you can't trust batteries unless you run the device for days on end.
In any case you have a battery charger which is all I claimed.
If you get the charging battery to self charge for a time after switch off then that is a bonus I guess.
I suspect this battery charger can recharge non-rechargeable batteries in series ie aa or pp3s etc. It is also cold charging.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.08.11, 17:57:36
So it seems like an ok result, but of course you can't trust batteries unless you run the device for days on end.
In any case you have a battery charger which is all I claimed.
If you get the charging battery to self charge for a time after switch off then that is a bonus I guess.
I suspect this battery charger can recharge non-rechargeable batteries in series ie aa or pp3s etc. It is also cold charging.
Huh? all you claimed???
let me remind you of what you claimed:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3796.msg76840#msg76840
QuoteRick made an interesting claim: Resonance is a gain.
In a series resonance circuit the input amperage remains the same as the circulating current in the resonant coil.
At the same time the voltage inside the resonant coil goes higher up to 144 times.
So a simple V x A = watts indicates OU of course.
So my question to myself was," What experiment can I devise to attempt to prove the claim" (Notice I am being positive folks).
What experiment can you think of??
Well here it is:
I used the principle of oscillating current as promulgated by Benitez.
So I attached one leg of the ac side of a bridge rectifier to the high voltage side of RICK's TX coil and the other leg to earth ground.
Then I attached the positive and negative sides to a 12 volt 7 amp hour battery and it charged very nicely.
I do not have the correct measuring skills to see if there is a gain - but to those interested I enclose a pic and encourage you to do the experiment.
It is 3 am and time for shut eye, I may develop the measuring skills tomorrow when i have time to think about it.
Oh and I was able to keep the device in resonance as I extracted real power out of it.
Looks to me you are backpedaling as Tinman use to say.
I know that i can charge a battery from another battery, thats not what i intended to replicate.
I intended to replicate your claims that "resonance is a gain", that you can "condition" a battery or capacitor,
that there is something like cold charging and that the charge battery will self charge for a while after switch off.
Well, up till now i see a marginal charging of he charge battery and it comes from the running battery big time.
Also the FWBR attached to ground which suppose the "suck in electrons" show nothing of that kind.
Monitoring the temperature of the charge battery casing and terminals show no decrease in temperature whatsoever.
Switching off the charge to the charge battery after 3 days stops the charging immediately.
I think i have heard enough about your claims and won't waste anymore time on them.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.11, 19:00:44
Huh? all you claimed???
let me remind you of what you claimed:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3796.msg76840#msg76840
Looks to me you are backpedaling as Tinman use to say.
I know that i can charge a battery from another battery, thats not what i intended to replicate.
I intended to replicate your claims that "resonance is a gain", that you can "condition" a battery or capacitor,
that there is something like cold charging and that the charge battery will self charge for a while after switch off.
Well, up till now i see a marginal charging of he charge battery and it comes from the running battery big time.
Also the FWBR attached to ground which suppose the "suck in electrons" show nothing of that kind.
Monitoring the temperature of the charge battery casing and terminals show no decrease in temperature whatsoever.
Switching off the charge to the charge battery after 3 days stops the charging immediately.
I think i have heard enough about your claims and won't waste anymore time on them.
Regards Itsu
I said I did not know what the output was. It was merely an attempt to extract some energy from the circuit and see if there was a gain. I also powered the RX coils by not placing them in the near field I still think that there is an overall gain at resonance.
Anyway just because you cannot get capacitors to go into negative resistance (or batteries) proves nothing. I can.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.08.12, 04:14:22
I said I did not know what the output was. It was merely an attempt to extract some energy from the circuit and see if there was a gain. I also powered the RX coils by not placing them in the near field I still think that there is an overall gain at resonance.
Anyway just because you cannot get capacitors to go into negative resistance (or batteries) proves nothing. I can.
Sounds like rubbish to me.
Odd how only you and Rick can get these wonderful results,but everyone else that follows the replication instructions to the letter,and carries out carful measurements,can never get the same results.
In the same post you say you can turn batteries and capacitors into negative resistors,and yet you also state that you have no idea as to what the output is in your own system.
The one thing you are good at though,is wasting people's time-just like your friend Rick.
I vote you should be put on moderation,so as admin can stop your posts on baseless claims. You should be required to provide evidence of your claims,so as good people like Itsu dont fall victim to those like you and Rick.
Brad
Ok guys, i wrap this one up and move on to other projects.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.12, 08:28:04
Ok guys, i wrap this one up and move on to other projects.
Regards Itsu
Good day Itsu
Thanks for giving it a go, I appreciate the time and effort you put into these research projects.
Still waiting for the day that one of these pans out :D
take care, peace
lost_bro
Hi Lost_bro,
good to see you around again, alive and kicking.
Yes, i too still hope for any project to be successfully replicated.
some day.....
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.12, 08:28:04
Ok guys, i wrap this one up and move on to other projects.
Pls wait for me to become available on the iron tickling project, as I am doing some vacationing now.
Meanwhile experimenting with the SPDT RF switch would be a good prelude to it.
...and if you do not want to risk your SA with the RF switch and the nanopulser, then
this (https://airspy.com/airspy-r2/) cheap option works, too.
verpies,
happy vacationing, enjoy.
Will be looking at the SPDT RF switch, it will need some good isolation to handle the nanopulsing.
I have a Nesdr smart receiver which receives from 24Mhz to 1700Mhz too.
https://www.antratek.com/nooelec-nesdr-smart
Perhaps its usable.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.12, 20:40:21
I have a Nesdr smart receiver which receives from 24Mhz to 1700Mhz too.
https://www.antratek.com/nooelec-nesdr-smart
Perhaps its usable.
Yes, it's usable. I mentioned the Airspy because I have it and I wrote some custom code for it. It is 4x more expensive but it has better sensitivity, more bandwidth and resolution (20MS/s @10ENOB vs. 3MS/s @7ENOB) and less spurs.
" Post by Itsu on OUR : concerning the charging of a battery using the HV of the big coil, it went nowhere, so i removed the 3 satellite coils surrounding the big coil.
Now some more HV is available to charge the battery as the charge current went up from 2.2mA to now 6.53mA.
The voltage went up in a few hours from 12.83V to now 12.87V.
Hopefully this extra power is enough to start "conditioning" the battery.
By the way, the input to the big coil / gate driver is now 12.59V @ 12mA (was 7mA with the 3 satellite coils).
Itsu
Running overnight, the charge battery is now at 12.92V (@ 6.48mA) and the primary battery at 12.56V (@ 12mA).
Itsu "
So let me see: In put battery went from 12.59 volts to 12.56 volts a loss of -0.03 volts.
The charging battery went up from 12.83 volts to 12.92 volts a gain of + 0.09 volts
You also detected that the battery did not increase in temperature. That means it was charged by cold electricity as a battery should increase it's heat signature when charged.
So we have an overall gain of +.06 volts.
These are your figures according to your highly scientific test.
Obviously the batteries need rotating for at least a month to ensure the results are accurate.. But it's a good start....
Unfortunately, for Free Energy Builders, Tinkerers and Experimenters,
the Voltage at the terminals of a Lead-Acid Battery is a very
unreliable indicator of anything. :(
A more accurate and reliable indicator of Energy Flow must be
utilized in order to discover what is truly happening. C.C
Many have been and continue to be deceived by Voltage
Measurements with the Lead-Acid Battery. :o
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.08.13, 18:53:38
" Post by Itsu on OUR : concerning the charging of a battery using the HV of the big coil, it went nowhere, so i removed the 3 satellite coils surrounding the big coil.
Now some more HV is available to charge the battery as the charge current went up from 2.2mA to now 6.53mA.
The voltage went up in a few hours from 12.83V to now 12.87V.
Hopefully this extra power is enough to start "conditioning" the battery.
By the way, the input to the big coil / gate driver is now 12.59V @ 12mA (was 7mA with the 3 satellite coils).
Itsu
Running overnight, the charge battery is now at 12.92V (@ 6.48mA) and the primary battery at 12.56V (@ 12mA).
Itsu "
So let me see: In put battery went from 12.59 volts to 12.56 volts a loss of -0.03 volts.
The charging battery went up from 12.83 volts to 12.92 volts a gain of + 0.09 volts
You also detected that the battery did not increase in temperature. That means it was charged by cold electricity as a battery should increase it's heat signature when charged.
So we have an overall gain of +.06 volts.
These are your figures according to your highly scientific test.
Obviously the batteries need rotating for at least a month to ensure the results are accurate.. But it's a good start....
Come on Aking.21, there is no "highly scientific test" done here, just straighforward measurements like
anybody could and should do before claiming anything.
After some hours settling of the batteries, the input battery went up to 12.57V and the charge
battery went down to 12.85V as that is what batteries do.
So -0.02V and +0.02V while the input battery also was powering 3 leds for most of the time.
Charging a battery with a few mA won't cause it to increase in temperature.
You are buying time, but time is up, this replication from me is closed.
You are free to open a thread here or use your thread at OU to publish your "highly scientific tests"
and shock the world.
Regards Itsu
Aking,
Those small changes in voltage mean NOTHING! You seem to know almost nothing about battery chemistry. Voltage level of a battery is a very rough approximation of what is going on with the battery. A few degrees of change in the room temperature can make a difference in the battery voltage. And conversely a minute charge current of only a few milliamps will not raise the temperature of a battery. The only accurate way to gauge what is going on within a battery is to use a battery analyzer which measures the capacity of the battery and the internal resistance of the battery and gives a much more accurate reading of the charge level of the battery than just a voltage reading.
It is statements like yours and others from Rick that make those of us with real electronics experience just shake our heads. I am not meaning to put you down but you really need to take the time to properly learn about electronics and in this case battery chemistry if you want to be taken seriously. I don't at this point see any hope for Rick but I am hoping that with enough time you will wake up to the real world so that you can seriously study and work toward OU if it is possible. I believe it is, but have yet to find it. Unfortunately I have seen enough of Rick's word salad to know he is not leading you in the right direction. I at one time was also led down the garden path by Rick's mentor John Bedini and his cohort Erron. My own research and study and years of experience helped my to see they were leading me in the wrong direction.
I see itsu answered while I was typing this so some of what I have posted is also covered by him.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.08.13, 19:29:39
Aking,
Those small changes in voltage mean NOTHING! You seem to know almost nothing about battery chemistry. Voltage level of a battery is a very rough approximation of what is going on with the battery. A few degrees of change in the room temperature can make a difference in the battery voltage. And conversely a minute charge current of only a few milliamps will not raise the temperature of a battery. The only accurate way to gauge what is going on within a battery is to use a battery analyzer which measures the capacity of the battery and the internal resistance of the battery and gives a much more accurate reading of the charge level of the battery than just a voltage reading.
It is statements like yours and others from Rick that make those of us with real electronics experience just shake our heads. I am not meaning to put you down but you really need to take the time to properly learn about electronics and in this case battery chemistry if you want to be taken seriously. I don't at this point see any hope for Rick but I am hoping that with enough time you will wake up to the real world so that you can seriously study and work toward OU if it is possible. I believe it is, but have yet to find it. Unfortunately I have seen enough of Rick's word salad to know he is not leading you in the right direction. I at one time was also led down the garden path by Rick's mentor John Bedini and his cohort Erron. My own research and study and years of experience helped my to see they were leading me in the wrong direction.
I see itsu answered while I was typing this so some of what I have posted is also covered by him.
Respectfully,
Carroll
The whole test was about batteries anyway. So why bother to encourage Itsu to do it if you think it was meaningless. I was merely looking for a way to extract some power out of reactive power. If the charging battery had gone down in voltage and also heated up relative to room temperature then that would have been the expected result. It did the opposite. So ban me if you want as Tinman wants. I might look in from time to time. Carry on mocking me. It seems to be good sport here.
Quote from: A.King.21
So ban me if you want...
What have you done which would merit a ban? ???
You've essentially presented a hypothesis supplemented
by preliminary observation and some measurement. :-\
Will this hypothesis develop into a theory? :P
We should all be aware of the Scientific Method and all that
it entails in order to assure that "claims" are not made
prematurely or erroneously. 8)
It is essential that all relevant "details" be adequately
examined. That you are being questioned by fellow colleagues
indicates that attention needs to be directed towards
several significant details. Objectively. C.C
Nobody gets banned on this thread without me knowing it as it is my thread and i am not intending to ban anyone.
I will give anybody a few hours from now to say what they want to say and then i will kindly ask all to stop arguing about my replication of Aking.21 his setup in this thread.
Feel free to look in from time to time and/or comment on the next project which is a continuation of an earlier started project to provoke an iron powder toroid to go into NMR by firing a nano-pulse at it.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.13, 20:32:54
... my replication of Aking.21 his setup in this thread.
Itsu
Hi Itsu. What was your conclusion for your replication attempt?
P.S. Regarding charging and discharging batteries and monitoring the battery terminal voltage,
I posted the following video demo about a week ago showing that a battery's terminal voltage
under a relatively light load can stay very stable for as much as even an hour. The battery
is powering both a small circuit and the LED light for the entire one hour duration, and the
battery's terminal voltage stays very stable at 12.791V, +/- 2mV, for the entire hour it is powering
the load. The LED is consuming roughly about 0.4W to 0.45W. I didn't measure it exactly because
it wasn't too important to the point I was trying to make, which is a battery can appear to be not discharging
while powering a load if you only run a test for say about an hour or less. It depends on the actual load in
comparison to the battery Amp-hour capacity, of course, regarding how long you need to let any test
run to be considered a reasonable test duration.
Self-Looped Circuit - Is this Over Unity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI1ZS_2wYR8
The demo runs for an entire hour, but you can jump through the video to view
the battery voltage at roughly 5 or 10 minute or whatever intervals to see that the battery terminal voltage
remained very stable for the entire hour. There were no tricks involved. The load current was just quite small
relative to the battery's 5 Ah rating.
All the best...
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.13, 20:32:54
Nobody gets banned on this thread without me knowing it as it is my thread and i am not intending to ban anyone.
I will give anybody a few hours from now to say what they want to say and then i will kindly ask all to stop arguing about my replication of Aking.21 his setup in this thread.
Feel free to look in from time to time and/or comment on the next project which is a continuation of an earlier started project to provoke an iron powder toroid to go into NMR by firing a nano-pulse at it.
Itsu
Good day Itsu
Have you investigated the FMR frequency of said iron powder toroid that you will use in the NMR experiment?
I will see if I can find the information I have on FMR testing.......and post it here.
take care, peace
lost_bro
Quote from: void on 2019.08.13, 21:53:56
Hi Itsu. What was your conclusion for your replication attempt?
P.S. Regarding charging and discharging batteries and monitoring the battery terminal voltage,
I posted the following video demo about a week ago showing that a battery's terminal voltage
under a relatively light load can stay very stable for as much as even an hour. The battery
is powering both a small circuit and the LED light for the entire one hour duration, and the
battery's terminal voltage stays very stable at 12.791V, +/- 2mV, for the entire hour it is powering
the load. The LED is consuming roughly about 0.4W to 0.45W. I didn't measure it exactly because
it wasn't too important to the point I was trying to make, which is a battery can appear to be not discharging
while powering a load if you only run a test for say about an hour or less. It depends on the actual load in
comparison to the battery Amp-hour capacity, of course, regarding how long you need to let any test
run to be considered a reasonable test duration.
Self-Looped Circuit - Is this Over Unity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI1ZS_2wYR8
The demo runs for an entire hour, but you can jump through the video to view
the battery voltage at roughly 5 or 10 minute or whatever intervals to see that the battery terminal voltage
remained very stable for the entire hour. There were no tricks involved. The load current was just quite small
relative to the battery's 5 Ah rating.
All the best...
Void,
nice to see you here.
My conclusion of my replication attempt of Aking.21 claims can be seen here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg77354#msg77354
Concerning charging / discharging batteries and your loop test, i think anyone working
with batteries for a while will notice this behaviour and should be aware if it.
Your video is a nice example of this behaviour and allthough i did not watch it all, it surely was
more interesting then some of RF his video's.
Itsu
Ok, i will ask everyone to stop arguing about my Aking.21 replication.
Feel free to discuss it further in an other thread you think is related to the subject.
Thanks, Itsu
Quote from: lost_bro on 2019.08.13, 23:26:08
Good day Itsu
Have you investigated the FMR frequency of said iron powder toroid that you will use in the NMR experiment?
I will see if I can find the information I have on FMR testing.......and post it here.
take care, peace
lost_bro
Lost_bro,
no i have not investigated the FMR (FerroMagnetic Resonance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetic_resonance) of my toroids.
Sounds interesting though, so yes, please look up any usefull info on it.
Thanks, Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2019.08.12, 21:28:29
Yes, it's usable. I mentioned the Airspy because I have it and I wrote some custom code for it. It is 4x more expensive but it has better sensitivity, more bandwidth and resolution (20MS/s @10ENOB vs. 3MS/s @7ENOB) and less spurs.
I ordered one anyway as it seems very usefull for other tests too.
How about the SPDT RF switch, is something like this usefull: https://tinyurl.com/y45gmbla
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
You can also consider the UK product SDRPlay (RSP1A (https://www.sdrplay.com/rsp1a/)).
1Khz -> 2GHz / 14bits at such a price is really interesting. I have the first version, which works very well.
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.14, 08:17:56
Void,
nice to see you here.
My conclusion of my replication attempt of Aking.21 claims can be seen here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg77354#msg77354
Concerning charging / discharging batteries and your loop test, i think anyone working
with batteries for a while will notice this behaviour and should be aware if it.
Your video is a nice example of this behaviour and allthough i did not watch it all, it surely was
more interesting then some of RF his video's.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Ok, thanks. I will try to watch your video tonight when I can get some time.
I thought maybe you could summarize in a few sentences about whether you
found anything in your tests which you think is interesting or potentially unusual,
but I guess you may have already done so.
The video I made doesn't need to be watched right through. A viewer can just skip
forward through the video at intervals to see that the voltage on the battery terminals
under a load of about 0.4W approx. stayed within a couple of millivolts for the entire hour.
A person might think people who have experimented with batteries would be aware of such an effect,
but Mr. RF in the other forum who claims to have much expertise with batteries commented regarding
my video:
"Maybe he has a power supply attached? Maybe there is a lithium battery under the black box? Who knows?"
Stefan also commented on one of RF's videos where a setup RF was showing was under a similar kind of light load
that Stefan thought the battery voltage staying fairly steady for the relatively short time the demo was running was quite significant.
These are people who have been at this a long time and they did not know about this effect. :D
This is the reason I made the video. I think many people assume that a battery's terminal voltage under load, no matter the
load current compared to the battery Amp-hour rating, will always steadily fall while under load, but that is
not necessarily the case at all, which is why I made that video demonstration.
All the best...
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.08.14, 10:41:26
Hi Itsu,
You can also consider the UK product SDRPlay (RSP1A (https://www.sdrplay.com/rsp1a/)).
1Khz -> 2GHz / 14bits at such a price is really interesting. I have the first version, which works very well.
That frequency range is impressive indeed.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Itsu
Quote from: void on 2019.08.14, 14:28:53
Hi Itsu,
Ok, thanks. I will try to watch your video tonight when I can get some time.
I thought maybe you could summarize in a few sentences about whether you
found anything in your tests which you think is interesting or potentially unusual,
but I guess you may have already done so.
The video I made doesn't need to be watched right through. A viewer can just skip
forward through the video at intervals to see that the voltage on the battery terminals
under a load of about 0.4W approx. stayed within a couple of millivolts for the entire hour.
A person might think people who have experimented with batteries would be aware of such an effect,
but Mr. RF in the other forum who claims to have much expertise with batteries commented regarding
my video:
"Maybe he has a power supply attached? Maybe there is a lithium battery under the black box? Who knows?"
Stefan also commented on one of RF's videos where a setup RF was showing was under a similar kind of light load
that Stefan thought the battery voltage staying fairly steady for the relatively short time the demo was running was quite significant.
These are people who have been at this a long time and they did not know about this effect. :D
This is the reason I made the video. I think many people assume that a battery's terminal voltage under load, no matter the
load current compared to the battery Amp-hour rating, will always steadily fall while under load, but that is
not necessarily the case at all, which is why I made that video demonstration.
All the best...
Void,
there is no video, just a link to a post of mine one page back.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.14, 14:54:12
Void,
there is no video, just a link to a post of mine one page back.
Itsu
Woops. :) Ah OK. Thanks Itsu.
I have just read your previous comment. I am not surprised by your conclusions.
Thanks for doing all that testing! You are very thorough.
All the best...
Hi Itsu,
While reading about your next project I was reminded of a paper I thought I had about getting energy from iron. I am not sure if this is the same thing you are talking about or not. But I found the paper and have attached it here. I apologize if it is not in line with what you are interested in. But thought you might want to take a look. I had at one time thought I would pursue this project but apparently life got in the way and I forgot about until seeing your posts.
Take care,
Carroll
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.08.14, 17:41:11
Hi Itsu,
While reading about your next project I was reminded of a paper I thought I had about getting energy from iron. I am not sure if this is the same thing you are talking about or not. But I found the paper and have attached it here. I apologize if it is not in line with what you are interested in. But thought you might want to take a look. I had at one time thought I would pursue this project but apparently life got in the way and I forgot about until seeing your posts.
Take care,
Carroll
Hi Carroll,
thanks for the tip, it looks similar as in that it involves iron but the difference seems to me that in your pdf the iron is being transmuted into manganese and back using high voltage and low frequency, while the process we try to use is Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) of the iron which seems to occure at 45.5MHz.
But if our way fails, we always can give your pdf method a try O0
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.14, 08:24:57
Lost_bro,
no i have not investigated the FMR (FerroMagnetic Resonance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetic_resonance) of my toroids.
Sounds interesting though, so yes, please look up any usefull info on it.
Thanks, Itsu
Good day Itsu
I was looking thru some info. pertaining to F.M.R. and found that the Ferromagnetic moment precession frequency is on the order of GHzs, which is much higher than your Fe N.M.R. freq. My S.A. has a top range of only 2GHz, so that makes it difficult. That being said, magnetocrystalline anisotrophy also influences the Ferromagnetic Resonance Frequency. I remember from a number of years ago, Akula was credited for having 'Heat treated' his ferrites used in his devices prior to usage. Heat treatment is known to alter the characteristics of ferrite/magnets (curie point). "Magnetic anisotropy strongly affects the shape of hysteresis loops and controls the ... Magnetocrystalline anisotropy is an intrinsic property of a ferrimagnet..." Don't know if heat treatment would actually lower the Ferromagnetic moment precession frequency or not, but this information reinforces the old Akula stories with a possible M.O. for his devices.
Link for Akula video (testing for sub-harmonics of F.M.R. frequency) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyo0EIH6mo8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyo0EIH6mo8)
He says the principle F.M.R. freq is approx 340GHz and he says that a 'useable' sub-harmonic is approx. 18MHz.
Use the CC translator as the vid is Russian.
Sorry for cluttering up your thread........ ;)
take care, peace
lost_bro
Thanks lost,
i remember that video, and also that i did a replication of it, but apparently i made no video of it.
Don't know the outcome, probably "not good" or "not enough info" as is usually the case with Russian video's.
Perhaps after watching the whole video it will bring back more details.
Itsu
I went back working on the nanopulser to be used in the 45.5Mhz iron toroid NMR project.
This is what i have at the moment, which was build according to the diagram from the pdf.
For D2 i use the same kind of TVS as for D8.
The screenshot shows the generated nano-pulse with this setup.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoFybhLc9SE
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.08.19, 19:50:54
I went back working on the nanopulser to be used in the 45.5Mhz iron toroid NMR project.
This is what i have at the moment, which was build according to the diagram from the pdf.
For D2 i use the same kind of TVS as for D8.
The screenshot shows the generated nano-pulse with this setup.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoFybhLc9SE
Itsu
Good day Itsu
I watched the video, what is inside the small metal box that is connected the the Mosfet PCB?
I noticed that it has really long twisted pair wires connecting it to the other pcb.
Which parts heat up when you reach the frequency repetition limit of the nanopulser?
I can think of a few experiments to do with such a pulser, but would need high repetition rate.
take care, peace
lost_bro
Hi Lost,
inside the small peppermunt box is the "100ns pulse @ 1hz" generator to drive the gate driver / MOSFET designed by verpies, see here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg71997#msg71997
and a video of it a few posts later here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg72211#msg72211
Above about 10Khz PRF (not tried it with this setup) the things that heat up fast are the MOSFET, the little toroid, the D2 diode, the DSR Diode,
the 50 Ohm termination resistor and the DSRD capacitors (C).
These last ones should be good quality as the ceramic disk ones used earier will heat up and lower in value, causing the pulse to drop quick.
I now use MLCC caps 2.2nF @ 4kv 3 parallel.
The design in the PDF claims 50Khz PRF and a 2.25kv pulse :D
Itsu
Itsu, Void, just to say hello to a friends and many thanks to Gyula for invited me in!
Hi WhatIsIt,
nice to have you here, welcome.
Itsu
Hello WhatItIt. Welcome! :)
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.03.27, 20:45:13
OK, I have ordered some 74VHC04, so that will improve the signal further.
Did you ever receive it ?
Yes, got some and put one in, working ok, since half a year or so.
Itsu
Member Nelson Rocha on Overunity.com presented a circuit which again looks promising.
No OU or such is claimed due to lack of input/output measurements.
Link to this post here:
https://overunity.com/18449/alternative-partnered-output-coils-and-free-energy/msg544436/#msg544436
3 video's are presented there showing the device and some basic measurements
Vídeo 1 https://photos.app.goo.gl/Qy4Wpo7rzfyKfdQ79
Video 2 https://photos.app.goo.gl/brsytsWBsTwbxL3A
Video 3 https://photos.app.goo.gl/Gz1Z6hwcSzjMGEAEA
A diagram was posted lateron here (also attached below, see drawing 1):
https://overunity.com/18449/alternative-partnered-output-coils-and-free-energy/msg544589/#msg544589
I have redrawn his circuit using LTSpice so it is more conform the standard layout (plus rail top, minus rail bottom, input left, output right), see drawing 2 below.
Due to my unexperience with LTSpice i am unable right now to start it (no working switch), but hopefully that will improve (asc file included).
I tried to setup this circuit on a breadboard first while waiting for the MJE18008G transistor using a MJE13009.
The thing does oscillate after some tickling (the switch) and shows the below signals (yellow emitter, blue base) but almost no output is measured on the CMC (i could have this wired wrong).
Waiting for the MJE18008G transistor right now.
My circuit runs on 20V and pulls about 100mA.
I have checked my redrawn circuit severall times, but it might be good for some fresh minds to do that too to be sure no mistakes are made.
Regards Itsu
I changed the output transformer (T1 or L2/L3) to another CMC measuring 0.6 Ohm / 37mH each and changed C5 to 3nF so they form a series resonance circuit on about 15Khz which is close
to the oscillating frequency of the transistor (12Khz).
Now i have better output on L3, so after rectification i have 208V DC on the output.
Itsu
I have corrected the LTSpice circuit but I think it isn't producing the expected behaviour. R2 hangs loosely in the air so I connected it to rectified minus. Switch now closes at 1 ms.
Nevertheless interesting circuit.
Thanks Frederik,
I had added the UF4007 and MJE18008 types to my local libraries, only the switch include was needed.
R2 was/is a csr, so i added now a 1K load resistor there.
But still there is no oscillation going after the switch closes, which even in the real circuit
does not happen spontaneously but only after severall switch attempts.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
One trick I have had some luck with in the past when a simulation circuit won't start properly, or at all, is to set some initial conditions (IC) on key capacitors, and in some cases even inductors.
So you could try (if you haven't already) adding an IC to either or both C4 and C5 to see if that helps. If you get it working, you may even be able to replace the switch with a resistor so that it starts up automatically.
Thanks Poynt,
i will read up on .ic spice directives to see if it works.
Itsu
I think in LTSpice you simply "open" the component properties and it is one of the parameters you can add. Default is of course 0. This is the parameters window where you would see other things like ESR resistance as well. It should be there, I just can't remember how to open it as I rarely use LTSpice.
If you want to add +1V, then enter 1, if you want to reverse the initial condition voltage, enter -1.
With "ctrl / right mouse" when on a component (Cap), you can add "ic=1" in the SpiceLine2 attribute and make it visible with an X.
But allthough the simulation behaviour changes, it does not make the circuit go into oscillating.
Will try severall settings.
Itsu
Basically, to use the .IC command line in LtSpice, you would use the following syntax.
Example: .IC I(L1)=.1 V(VL1)=2 This sets the inductor L1 with an initial current of 100ma and the node VL1 at 2 volts. Please note, if you set an inductor with an initial current, you must consider the voltage(s) across said inductor in the circuit. IOW, you could have unrealistic voltage levels depending on the circuit so one must set intial condition voltages across the same inductor.
Caveats are, you can only set the initial current condition of an inductor and/or a voltage condition of any node in the circuit plus these may be mixed in one .ic statement. These conditions are dc prior to the simulation run and work only in the transient analysis.
Regards,
Pm
Partzman,
thanks, i included severall of these .IC statements for all 3 L's in the circuit, but it won't force it into oscillating.
Never mind, i will continue with the real circuit as that one is equally difficult to get into oscillating.
When it does oscillate however, the input will be around 24V / 100mA (and climbing) and the output will be an unloaded 200V.
When loaded with say 10K, the output drops to 21V or so, so it has very little power.
I can make some nice sparks with a 250V/100uF cap, but up till now it acts like a low power boost converter (24V / 200V).
Perhaps with the right transistor it will change.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.13, 20:20:40
Partzman,
thanks, i included severall of these .IC statements for all 3 L's in the circuit, but it won't force it into oscillating.
Never mind, i will continue with the real circuit as that one is equally difficult to get into oscillating.
When it does oscillate however, the input will be around 24V / 100mA (and climbing) and the output will be an unloaded 200V.
When loaded with say 10K, the output drops to 21V or so, so it has very little power.
I can make some nice sparks with a 250V/100uF cap, but up till now it acts like a low power boost converter (24V / 200V).
Perhaps with the right transistor it will change.
Itsu
Hi all re Itsu, you didnt wast much time with NELSONS DEVICE (promised I would promote his device he invented)
I'm not sure you have got the idea right as I didn;t have much trouble getting any of the device to work at all
I couldn't get any of the wound components off the shelf and had to wind my own and your right it is very low power.
I think I know where your going wrong you need to put the bulb or LED back in the + feed and shunt it with a 150 ohm
or you cant see whats going on, secondly what's that 20 M in the emiter circuit ? how did you arive at that value ?
Show me if you can emiter and output drive shot the output choke circit diode end if you can that way i can tell you whats wrong.
regards AG
PS i forgot to put electrolytic across supply note blue led glows, now draws less current and no longer glows.
Note I wouldn't say its over unity though!
Hi AG,
The R1 (and R2) 10 Ohm resistors in the supply and output lines are the bulbs (6 Ohms bulbs).
But LTspice has no bulb in its library, so i used the 10 Ohm resistors instead, also to act as csr's in the real circuit which should give me an indication of the current like the bulbs suppose to do.
As Nelson did not specify (measured) the coils (chokes) inductances, but just gave the ohmic resistance (L1 =2.6 Ohm, L2/L3=T1=CMC=0.6 Ohm), i digged up in my junkbox a 2.5 Ohm choke which
measured 20mH that i use as L1 and a 0.6 Ohm CMC which measured 2x37mH as L2/L3 (T1).
Not sure where you got the led/150 Ohm from as its not in the original circuit.
Also the 56 Ohm resistor in the switch line is not.
Emitter and base signals in my earlier post above, will shoot a video later today for the other sigs.
Regards Itsu
Shure Itsue i know where your comming from, the 10 R is just great or the current is too great I fried a led or two
It's up to you in the end mine only draws less than 8Ma and the multi LED is only hafe lit.
The 56R in the base stops frying the base emitter junction and the bulb or led in the supply.
It's like a mini Dally devie the way it works any way don't want to tread on your toes
so I will leave you get on.
good luck
AG
AG, thanks for the info, any comment is welcome, no problem.
A 6 Ohm (cold) bulb in my supply line lights up fairly bright at 83mA and has a voltage drop of 4V over it pointing to 48 Ohm hot resistance.
Itsu
Some initial measurements while waiting for the correct transistor.
Input 24v @ 83mA
Output 198V (unloaded)
Output 15V @ 0.7mA (loaded with a strip of leds).
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4V3P4hNAoY
Some noted differences with Nelson his video:
# my input current (82mA) is almost 3 times that of Nelson his circuit (31mA for Nelson).
# The output rise when loading a capacitor seems much faster in Nelson his circuit i think, but not
sure what value cap he was using (mine is 250v @ 100uF).
# my output bulb does not show any light (obviously OK with only 0.8mA) but Nelson his does.
It could be that those differences are due to the wrong transistor, so need to wait and see.
Somehow i have the impression that there is something not correct yet with my circuit.
Itsu
Itsu - thank you for your work on this and for sharing.
O0
Hi all I don't want to be a pain in the bum but what if using MJE18008 transister or whatever doesn't fix the problem ?
What then ? lets go back a year or two ?
Perhaps it's deeper than that ? do you remember this photo ?
I keep saying this but please please scope the back end of the output wave compaired to the osc wave.
Steve, thanks.
Ag,
i don't think the MJE18008 transistor will change much, so something else could be not correct yet.
Its not that simple to measure "the back end of the output wave compaired to the osc wave" as the backend is "floating" compared to the input.
I did scoped the backend seperately and try to influence the sigs by adjusting the severall caps to get a nice resonance sine wave f.i.
Not sure yet what "the key" is there.
Itsu
quick video here
https://youtu.be/J4e6gd7rIdw
AG
if I connect the multi lamp direct and get it to the same brightness it's not far off the same brightness it's probably about 98% efficient
;D
love it - dogs , kids , noise, domestic strife and you still do -- onward onward - you put me to shame
Yes thanks AG,
could be this haystack approach is benificial for this type of circuit (spontane oscillations).
Finally got some oscillations in the sim like i have in the real circuit, see picture.
Had to keep it simple, so removed the swich and used the .IC attribute for C4 (ic=1.4).
Then had to lower the C1 value to 5nF to get a similar waveform on the emitter as in real life
Problem is that i had to remove the coupling to the output stage (L2 / L3).
Probably the load from that part is to heavy right now.
Frequency is close, 9Khz while the real circuit is at 12Khz.
Itsu
I understand from Nelson that the effect we are after is the "negative resistance effect".
I did some work on negative resistance here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2.msg36020#msg36020
and i think the 2n2222 transistor is one of the transistors mosly used due to its specifications.
So i think we need to find the correct setting for the used MJE18008 transistor to get it
oscillating in this negative resistance region.
I hope Gyula would be able to shed his knowledgeable light over this.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.17, 11:11:17
I understand from Nelson that the effect we are after is the "negative resistance effect".
I did some work on negative resistance here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2.msg36020#msg36020
and i think the 2n2222 transistor is one of the transistors mosly used due to its specifications.
So i think we need to find the correct setting for the used MJE18008 transistor to get it
oscillating in this negative resistance region.
Itsu: I would hope that Nelson can also give a hand here.
You mentioned "negative resistance region", are you basically saying that at that certain "region", the resistance in the circuit is reduced, compared to other "regions"? But, not that there is no resistance, at all? Just less resistance, and therefore higher output, and higher gain. Right? Just trying to rap this around my head. Yet, unless there is an output section in any circuit, there is no usefulness to it. Or, is that part up coming...
Hi Nick,
please see the link i provided above from JLN labs:
http://bingofuel.online.fr/cnr/negosc.htm
It will explain some.
Itsu
Itsu:
Thanks, that was a more than just a handful of info.
Isn't this negative resistance idea, something similar to what happens at resonance? Less resistance, thus higher output?
Have you tried different frequencies, on the input from your SG?
Perhaps the 3 or more of those series connected transistors work similar to Dr. Stiffler's diode loop idea? Not just allowing for higher input, but allowing a much higher output. Unfortunately on my tests, at the expense of higher draw from the input. Higher efficiency, but not free lunch, yet. Still the idea is for any circuit to be able to self run, itself. Are we getting any closer...
Hi Itsu,
I think when we build oscillators we need to differentiate active devices with negative resistance regions in their V-I characteristics (Esaki (tunnel) diode, Lambda diode, reverse biased p-n junctions) from the 'normal' active devices (transistor, FET) operated in a positive feedback circuit which is able to create negative resistance just by the positive feedback i.e. when there is no positive feedback then there is no negative resistance appearing between two pins of an active device like a bipolar transistor or a field effect transistor.
I think Nelson's oscillator is much closer to a positively feedbacked oscillator circuit (the transistor does not receive reverse bias to be able to exhibit negative resistance).
However, this oscillator needs a 'kick' to start, the switch when pushed provides the initial DC (positive for npn) bias for the base-emitter and oscillation could start if two further conditions are met.
One is that there should be a positive AC feedback maintained (this is likely provided by C3 in Nelson's circuit) and the other condition is the transistor should have an (initial DC) voltage gain > 1. This latter seems to be insured by the 6 Ohm bulb (when cold) in the collector and the 2.6 Ohm coil in the emitter (6 / 2.6 > 1). The bulb resistance then increases (hot resistance) as the circuit start working as you know this well.
So I think resistor R1 (i.e. the bulb) in the simulator should be inreased to say 47 Ohm to increase gain.
This is I could comment at the moment. It would be good to know the purpose of this oscillator circuit and what is meant on "negative resistance effect" ?
Gyula
Quote from: NickZ on 2020.04.17, 14:58:01
Itsu:
Thanks, that was a more than just a handful of info.
Isn't this negative resistance idea, something similar to what happens at resonance? Less resistance, thus higher output?
Have you tried different frequencies, on the input from your SG?
Perhaps the 3 or more of those series connected transistors work similar to Dr. Stiffler's diode loop idea? Not just allowing for higher input, but allowing a much higher output. Unfortunately on my tests, at the expense of higher draw from the input. Higher efficiency, but not free lunch, yet. Still the idea is for any circuit to be able to self run, itself. Are we getting any closer...
Nick,
negative resistance is to be believed by many the opposite of loosing power namely: generating power.
So a negative resistor could/should be supplying power instead of consuming it.
The trick here is to use that small region of this negative resistance to indeed generate
power, preferable more then that it costs to create it.
It is in that sense comparable (but not similar) as resonance as there also the trick is to
use that small region of resonance to our advantage without disturbing it.
Nelson never claimed this specific circuit produces OU or so, but it makes sense for me to look
into it.
Itsu
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.17, 15:14:04
Hi Itsu,
I think when we build oscillators we need to differentiate active devices with negative resistance regions in their V-I characteristics (Esaki (tunnel) diode, Lambda diode, reverse biased p-n junctions) from the 'normal' active devices (transistor, FET) operated in a positive feedback circuit which is able to create negative resistance just by the positive feedback i.e. when there is no positive feedback then there is no negative resistance appearing between two pins of an active device like a bipolar transistor or a field effect transistor.
I think Nelson's oscillator is much closer to a positively feedbacked oscillator circuit (the transistor does not receive reverse bias to be able to exhibit negative resistance).
However, this oscillator needs a 'kick' to start, the switch when pushed provides the initial DC (positive for npn) bias for the base-emitter and oscillation could start if two further conditions are met.
One is that there should be a positive AC feedback maintained (this is likely provided by C3 in Nelson's circuit) and the other condition is the transistor should have an (initial DC) voltage gain > 1. This latter seems to be insured by the 6 Ohm bulb (when cold) in the collector and the 2.6 Ohm coil in the emitter (6 / 2.6 > 1). The bulb resistance then increases (hot resistance) as the circuit start working as you know this well.
So I think resistor R1 (i.e. the bulb) in the simulator should be inreased to say 47 Ohm to increase gain.
This is I could comment at the moment. It would be good to know the purpose of this oscillator circuit and what is meant on "negative resistance effect" ?
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
i was hoping you would chime in, thanks.
Well the negative resistance idea comes in mind due to fact that the current under certain conditions
in Nelson his setup (see his 3 video's) on the output is higher as the input, measured / shown
by the intensity of the bulbs in both the input and output.
I have not detected this effect yet, but have not installed the correct transistor (MJE18008).
Untill i have one i am optimizing my oscillation setup by trying to match the same conditions
(30mA input current) and the correct series resonance frequency on the coils.
My setup pulls between 70 and 100mA (MJE13009) at 24V and the output current is around 12mA max.
with about 18V across some leds as load.
Itsu
Gyula,
some further comments, C3 (Nelson)= C1 in my diagram has SOME influence on the oscillating
frequency; at 100n its about 12Khz, at 5n its 14Khz, so a limited difference and not what
i would expect in a series circuit made up by C1 and L1, so there must be another frequency
determining component there.
Changing R1 in the sim from 6 to 48 or even 0 Ohm makes no difference in oscillations or frequency.
Itsu
Dear Itsu,
IMHO, when negative resistance manifests in the V - I characteristic curve of a two terminal device by biasing it within a certain voltage - current range from an outside source like a battery, (see Naudin http://bingofuel.online.fr/cnr/images/negosndr.gif (http://bingofuel.online.fr/cnr/images/negosndr.gif) ) then this device cannot "produce" higher output power than what its DC input bias provides. This is valid for both kinds of devices I mentioned in my previous post i.e. for 2 terminal devices like tunnel and Lambda diodes, reverse biased pn junctions etc and for 3 terminal devices like bipolar and field effect transistors used in circuits where positive feedback is intentionally created by appropiate components to create negative resistance between two terminals of the 3 terminal device.
Regarding the brightness of the input and output bulbs: In Nelson's videos, if the input bulb is the one labeled as E1 in his original schematic, then its brightness refers to how much power the bulb consumes, in series with the circuit, nothing else. This bulb acts in the circuit as the upper member of a voltage divider and the lower member of this divider is the rest of the circuit, ok? Power levels consumed are different for the two because the voltage levels are different across them while the current is the same.
I understand that the output current (38.8 mA) is higher than the input current (which is between 20 and 30 mA) as measured in video 2 for instance. The input voltage is 24 V as shown but I do not know the output voltage level across the bulb E2 if that is assigned for the output load.
Nelson mentioned in video 1 the bulbs are 12 V 1W rated bulbs with 6 Ohm cold resistance. This means that almost the full 24 V feeds the circuit (E1 bulb in series with the input remains dark because it has no enough voltage remaining from the rest of the circuit) and E2 output bulb may get roughly 8-10 V output voltage to have the brightness shown (it is a 12 V bulb).
I understand that you wish to see similar behaviour in your replicated circuit (for instance see the difference in the two currents).
It is possible that with MJE18008 transistor you get closer to those values. With oscillators it is a bit difficult to deal with to make them operate similarly. Sorry that changing R1 in the simulation circuit did not have any effect (what I expected).
Regarding C3 in Nelson's circuit (C1 in yours) I still think it establishes positive feedback from collector to emitter (but only in case R1, the bulb in Nelson circuit has at least 6 Ohm or higher value) and as a feedback capacitor it surely influences operating frequency too but in a smaller extent than a real tuning capacitor would do say in parallel with the coil L1.
If you vary C4 10 nF in Nelson circuit, does it change frequency better than C3 (i.e. your C1) ? Try to vary it if you have not done it yet.
Regarding the roughly 3 times as high input current, does the 300 Ohm resistor in series with the base in Nelson circuit (you show a variable potmeter in the sim) influences input current much? If you put say a 470 Ohm potmeter in your real circuit, would input current change by varying the pot?
What is not ok in the sim is you had to remove the coupling factor between L2-L3: can power be transformed to the output with zero coupling? Or how the heavy load of R2, 10 Ohm (if you meant that) could appear for the oscillator with zero coupling for L2-L3?
Regards
Gyula
Guys:
I've tried to look for Nelson's 3 videos about this device, but, it seams that he no longer has a channel up on YouTube.
It also seams to me, that we are being guided by the bulb brightness, on those videos. Which may certainly relate to what Gyula just mentioned above. As well as the no load tests, performed so far.
Yet, Nelson's later videos do show his device self running, with a feed back circuit attached. So I suppose that that is the purpose and idea of any lessons that may be learned from the negative resistance tests. Which he wanted us to see.
But, when we will get the full info of that self running device, which is what I've been waiting for. Keep waiting Nick...
Nelson, common guy, drop another nugget, or two. Please.
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.17, 21:55:44
Dear Itsu,
IMHO, when negative resistance manifests in the V - I characteristic curve of a two terminal device by biasing it within a certain voltage - current range from an outside source like a battery, (see Naudin http://bingofuel.online.fr/cnr/images/negosndr.gif (http://bingofuel.online.fr/cnr/images/negosndr.gif) ) then this device cannot "produce" higher output power than what its DC input bias provides. This is valid for both kinds of devices I mentioned in my previous post i.e. for 2 terminal devices like tunnel and Lambda diodes, reverse biased pn junctions etc and for 3 terminal devices like bipolar and field effect transistors used in circuits where positive feedback is intentionally created by appropiate components to create negative resistance between two terminals of the 3 terminal device.
Regarding the brightness of the input and output bulbs: In Nelson's videos, if the input bulb is the one labeled as E1 in his original schematic, then its brightness refers to how much power the bulb consumes, in series with the circuit, nothing else. This bulb acts in the circuit as the upper member of a voltage divider and the lower member of this divider is the rest of the circuit, ok? Power levels consumed are different for the two because the voltage levels are different across them while the current is the same.
I understand that the output current (38.8 mA) is higher than the input current (which is between 20 and 30 mA) as measured in video 2 for instance. The input voltage is 24 V as shown but I do not know the output voltage level across the bulb E2 if that is assigned for the output load.
Nelson mentioned in video 1 the bulbs are 12 V 1W rated bulbs with 6 Ohm cold resistance. This means that almost the full 24 V feeds the circuit (E1 bulb in series with the input remains dark because it has no enough voltage remaining from the rest of the circuit) and E2 output bulb may get roughly 8-10 V output voltage to have the brightness shown (it is a 12 V bulb).
I understand that you wish to see similar behaviour in your replicated circuit (for instance see the difference in the two currents).
It is possible that with MJE18008 transistor you get closer to those values. With oscillators it is a bit difficult to deal with to make them operate similarly. Sorry that changing R1 in the simulation circuit did not have any effect (what I expected).
Regarding C3 in Nelson's circuit (C1 in yours) I still think it establishes positive feedback from collector to emitter (but only in case R1, the bulb in Nelson circuit has at least 6 Ohm or higher value) and as a feedback capacitor it surely influences operating frequency too but in a smaller extent than a real tuning capacitor would do say in parallel with the coil L1.
If you vary C4 10 nF in Nelson circuit, does it change frequency better than C3 (i.e. your C1) ? Try to vary it if you have not done it yet.
Regarding the roughly 3 times as high input current, does the 300 Ohm resistor in series with the base in Nelson circuit (you show a variable potmeter in the sim) influences input current much? If you put say a 470 Ohm potmeter in your real circuit, would input current change by varying the pot?
What is not ok in the sim is you had to remove the coupling factor between L2-L3: can power be transformed to the output with zero coupling? Or how the heavy load of R2, 10 Ohm (if you meant that) could appear for the oscillator with zero coupling for L2-L3?
Regards
Gyula
Gyula,
an excelent post, you worded it basically as my thought about this, thanks.
The whole circuit "seems" to act like there is negative resistance somewhere based on the brightness of the bulbs only.
It could be the transistor (unlikely) or something else in the setup (delay line?).
But also Naudin stated that his circuit is NO OU.
The key effect seems to be the less brightness in the input bulb compared to the output bulb (when shorting the output) AND the dimming of the input bulb when shorting the output.
Neither of them i am able to confirm which is my goal here and then take some proper measurements.
C4 10nF has not much influence on the frequency either, even less then C1 (mine).
The pot (500 Ohm) has almost no influence on the input current, only at one end (the low Ohm end) it rapitly drops the input current until it stops oscillating.
In the sim when removing the coupling factor (or zeroing it) there is oscillation, but no sigs on the output.
I tried severall things like an array of coupling value's and all kind of loads, but it won't start oscillating then, could be i did not find the correct value's yet as my real life circuit proves it can oscillate.
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Okay on the behaviour of the 500 Ohm potmeter, at its low Ohm end it shunts the base-emitter bias voltage too low and the transistor fails operating then. Thanks also for reflecting back on C4.
I think the negative resistance may manifest between two terminals (likely they are the collector and the emitter) of the transistor, due to the positive feedback caused mainly by C3 in Nelson's schematic and it influences the operating frequency too.
So there surely is a negative resistance occuring in the circuit which changes its resistance value dynamically as the load dictates within certain ranges. Neither Nelson nor Naudin claims OU with these circuits, I understand.
Because we do not know the inductance values in Nelson's circuit, the possibility of resonating his choke coil (T1, pins 2 and 3) with the 10 nF C5 capacitor at the oscillator operating frequency could be attempted.
Gyula
PS :
For those interested in the behaviour of negative resistance devices in oscillators, here is a good presentation on two terminal negative resistance devices whereby the device itself can be built from a P and an N channel JFET combination or from an N channel and a PNP transistor combination. see here:
http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Theory/neg_resistance/negres.htm (http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Theory/neg_resistance/negres.htm)
I mean for instance Figure 5 where the 1 kOhm resistor could be replaced by a parallel LC circuit of quasi any L and C choices and one gets a simple and working oscillator. And the change in input current could be studied when the LC circuit is loaded, indicating the dynamic change of the negative resistance as the impedance of the LC circuit changes (within certain range). Of course, Figure 8 shows an oscillator when the 1 kOhm regeneration potmeter is omitted or turned towards zero Ohm.
Interesting link Gyula, thanks.
I reverse connected L2 compared to L3 to see if that makes any difference, but it does not.
Makes sense to me as the L3 output part is floating compared to the L2 input part.
As the oscillation frequency of the circuit (with or without L2/L3) is about 12Khz, i tried to make a series resonance circuit with L2/L3.
Both are 37mH, so to resonate at 12Khz, there must be a 4.7nF cap in series.
So i changed C5 and C6 (my diagram) to 4.7nf, but no improvement is seen nor the effect that the output bulb is brighter then the input bulb when shorting the output.
Guess i have to wait for my MJE18008 transitor to show up for any further testing.
Itsu
Itsu, you wrote C6 (as per your diagram) which is here I suppose:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg81058#msg81058 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg81058#msg81058)
and I see C6 in parallel with one of the full wave bridge diodes. It cannot change frequency at that place. Or you made a typo and meant another capacitor?
In fact I notice this parallel capacitor as C7, 50 nF in Nelson's schematic too, you included here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg80986#msg80986 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg80986#msg80986)
I would like to understand what advantage is received from this capacitor?
I am aware of such capacitors in parallel with the individual diodes of full wave diode bridges used at the input AC side of switch mode power supplies but all the four diodes have identical value capacitors connected in parallel with them, not with a single diode out of the 4 only.
The reason for using the 4 caps across the 4 diodes of the bridge is to help reduce the quick switching signal products coming from the switch mode circuit (or from the 4 diodes themselves) and going towards the AC input, the 4 capacitors shunt most of these unwanted signals by forming a 'capacitor bridge'.
Regarding the value of C5 in your schematic (in series with L2), I think several values would need to be tested because if we consider the possible other capacitors that may influence the value of C5 in the circuit, we can see the top pin of C5 is connected to the top pin of C1, the bottom pin of C1 is connected to the emitter which is connected to C4 and C4 is then connected to the bottom of L2, ok? So the actual "tuning" capacitor is not only C5 but influenced by C1 and C4 in series with it (even if C4 is shunted by diode D1).
This may mean you would need to test several cap values for C5 in the some ten nF range if C1 and C5 are to be left unchanged for a while.
Gyula
Gyula,
sorry about the confusion on the components in the original circuit from Nelson and my redraw, i should of have payed more attention and should have made them the same notation.
Talking my redraw notation now:
I regarded C6 the series cap of L3 and in fact it does influence the output signal of L3.
But the signal there is a mix of square wave, sine wave and high frequency ringing sigs, so hard to see if anything changes for the good.
If this C6 is really the series cap meant also by Nelson i do not know.
Perhaps he included it for a different purpose.
I did add extra caps in both series and parallel with L3, but no nice sine wave like signal (resonance) is seen up till now.
I also used many different caps for the major C's (C1, C4, C5 and C6), but the effect as described by Nelson in his video's did not manifest.
I will try some further tonight.
EDIT, according to Nelson, my C6 is meant to dump HF noise from L3, so not as series cap and it should be 4nF, so not 50.
Regards Itsu
I did a quick characterisation of my used 6V bulbs to indicate the resistance and voltage drop.
I can now see at what current there is a specific resistance and/or voltage drop.
I eddited the start of the data by starting at 0.1V
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Okay on returning to the role of your C6. Notice though that in Nelson's original schematic C6 is 200 nF and is across the output of the diode bridge. And he labeled the "50 nF" capacitor as C7 which is in parallel with one of the diodes in the diode bridge, and this is your C6, right?
No problem, just to clarify so that everybody following this thread should understand what labels we refer to.
It is good you got acquainted with the nonlinear V-I curve of your bulbs, will surely help.
Gyula
OK, see below the latest diagram using MY notations.
C6 is 4nF (corrected by Nelson) and is to "dump HF noise", so not to get series resonance at the output stage.
Other adjustments are the 13 Ohm (cold) bulbs R1 and R2
Important components are C1, C4 (oscillations), C5 (resonance), L1 (2.6 Ohm!) and L2/L3.
SIM still not running with coupling >0.
Itsu
Finally got the sim doing something at the output stage.
Had to add a ground sign on the floating output part (below C8).
Doing the same on the real circuit makes no difference, so that point could be connected to the 24V return line.
But still only coupling factor 0.1 works to get some signals from the output stage.
Also C8 cap needs to be low, so i toke 6u instead of the 460u.
Dark blue is across L3,
green is across C7 and
light blue is across R4.
Itsu
I put 2 of my 7 Ohm (cold) bulbs in series at the input to mimic the 13 Ohm (cold) bulb of
Nelson, but the input current dropped from 77 to 65 mA only.
Also the effect of decreased current while shorting the output was not seen.
A 2n2222 transistor (used in negative resistance oscillators) was not able to start oscillating
in my circuit, so i run out of options untill the MJE18008 arrives.
Itsu
I found in my junkbox some chokes similar to Nelson's L1 which measure 2.7mH / 1.6 Ohm and 9.8mH / 5 Ohm.
The latter one (9.8mH) drops the input current to about 9mA (oscillations around 4KHz) and first one (2.7mH), drops the input current to 24mA (oscillations around 7Khz).
I did some tests with this last one and it seems the input current decreases when loading the output cap, but still almost no output current (1-2 mA range).
Varying C1 from 100n to 3n makes the output voltage rise to over 250V, so had to watch for overloading the caps.
Anyway, a step closer to replication, but not the whole effect.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
I think you refer to C1 in your schematic (attached two posts above) and it makes the positive feedback between the collector and the emitter.
So try to choose a C1 value with which the unloaded DC output is around 200 V. And of course, use for this the 2.7 mH 1.5 Ohm coil for L1 to get the input current around 30-35 mA. Think of the potmeter setting in series with the base too, when adjusting current.
The low output current may indicate the output impedance is high I think and limits output current. This impedance is established mainly (but not fully) by L2 and C5 in your schematic.
Good progress with finding the significant effect of L1 on the input current.
Gyula
Gyula,
yes, C1 in my diagram is the one across collector / emitter.
Lowering it will influence the input current too, so i will try the 2.7mH L1 and C1 to get around 30mA input current.
Thinking about these 2 new chokes values (2.7mH / 1.6 Ohm and 9.8mH / 5 Ohm), does it make sense to say that the L1 of Nelson (2.6 Ohm) would have about 4.7mH of inductance and not my measured 20mH (half of a CMC)?
I will adjust that in my sim to see how it reacts.
Concerning the low output current, my C5 gives the best output (voltage wise) with a fairly high value (47 - 64nF) but the signals look spiky (across the bridge).
Using a lower value (3nF) creates an almost sine wave (resonance?), but lower in amplitude.
This could be normal as series resonance (low C5) will cause low impedance thus low voltage / high current.
I will try to focus on that tonight too.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.21, 08:44:11
....
Thinking about these 2 new chokes values (2.7mH / 1.6 Ohm and 9.8mH / 5 Ohm), does it make sense to say that the L1 of Nelson (2.6 Ohm) would have about 4.7mH of inductance and not my measured 20mH (half of a CMC)?
....
Hi Itsu,
Yes, it makes sense. Even if Nelson's coil has 2.6 Ohm DC resistance and it causes higher negative feedback in the emitter than your 1.6 Ohm, the inductive reactance also counts and the 20 mH sounds high in your case.
This question of input current or the value of C1 is also transistor_parameter dependent, unfortunately.
Regarding the output circuit, do you have lower value L2 and L3 coils for testing than the present one? (now that L1 is the 2.7mH / 1.6 Ohm, it may be worth testing them again, and do the C5 change in wide range too with it). Sorry if you have done so since then.
It is maybe not only about series resonance between L2-C5 (which would otherwise make sense) but a combined, mainly reactive transformation of impedances from inside the oscillator towards the output side.
Gyula
Thanks Gyula,
i can fiddle around with L2/L3 too as i have some lower value's CMC's.
Using the 4.7mH choke for L1 in the sim enables severall other values to be updated to more realisic values like the coupling factor 0.7, and the output cap C8 to be 470uF.
I had to lower C1 to 2nF to get the highest input current (15mA rms).
Anyway, now the sim also want to run better i guess this 4.7mH is the more realistic one.
Shown is the input current through R1
Regards itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.21, 15:37:43
Thanks Gyula,
i can fiddle around with L2/L3 too as i have some lower value's CMC's.
Using the 4.7mH choke for L1 in the sim enables severall other values to be updated to more realisic values like the coupling factor 0.7, and the output cap C8 to be 470uF.
I had to lower C1 to 2nF to get the highest input current (15mA rms).
Anyway, now the sim also want to run better i guess this 4.7mH is the more realistic one.
Shown is the input current through R1
Regards itsu
Hi Itsu,
After looking for various software that use the microphone to detect frequency and type of wave, I found software for a mobile phone, where I could check some data regarding the frequency of operation of my current circuit.
The frequency that the software recorded, this is more or less correct, after measuring and comparing with my Rigoli multimeter.
These are the shots .
Best rewards
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.04.21, 18:19:08
Hi Itsu,
After looking for various software that use the microphone to detect frequency and type of wave, I found software for a mobile phone, where I could check some data regarding the frequency of operation of my current circuit.
The frequency that the software recorded, this is more or less correct, after measuring and comparing with my Rigoli multimeter.
These are the shots .
Best rewards
Itsu,
I would like it if it were possible for you to measure the voltage with a multimeter initially in dc mode between transistor emitter , and diode D1 cathode , after that the same operation but now chose AC mode in multimeter . The values i measure with a 24v input, is 145DC and 67AC respectively . I would like now that values only to compare .
Thanks
best rewards
Hi Nelson,
Thanks for the frequency, 19Khz is fairly high as my circuit operates around 12Khz.
Measuring across D1 diode i measure 95V DC and 50V AC using my Fluke DMM.
Input was 24V @ 35mA.
I made a video showing some operation of my circuit with the new L1 (2.7mH).
it shows that after setting the 500 Ohm pot to about 229 Ohm, the input current went to 33mA.
It also shows that placing the ground lead of my scope probe influences this input current to be 24mA or so.
The circuit is not grounded anywhere, so that was strange for me.
Also shown is the signal across L2 which with the 47nF C5 series cap is kind of spikey.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlF0r8cu9MI&feature=youtu.be
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.21, 19:27:52
Hi Nelson,
Thanks for the frequency, 19Khz is fairly high as my circuit operates around 12Khz.
Measuring across D1 diode i measure 95V DC and 50V AC using my Fluke DMM.
Input was 24V @ 35mA.
I made a video showing some operation of my circuit with the new L1 (2.7mH).
it shows that after setting the 500 Ohm pot to about 229 Ohm, the input current went to 33mA.
It also shows that placing the ground lead of my scope probe influences this input current to be 24mA or so.
The circuit is not grounded anywhere, so that was strange for me.
Also shown is the signal across L2 which with the 47nF C5 series cap is kind of spikey.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlF0r8cu9MI&feature=youtu.be
Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
Thanks by the video and data. Yes seems my circuit run a bit higher freq . I was intrigued by the waveform, Seems like was be affected by some type of parasite freq.
I really have a good hear ,and over the years I learned to recognize and identify some frequencies just by ear, and seems some mixed freq exist .
I try tune with AM radio near the circuit and is curious the freq noise generated when the circuit is charging the circuit or shorted, seems exist some type of variation ,
Did you already try short the output ? The oscillation stop if you short the output ?
In relation to lower the input when you ground to the scope probe i think was related with the floating point located at emitter . :)
Nelson,
good catch, my FFT shows that there are severall evenly strong signals being generated, like 7, 14 and 21Khz depending on what components i use.
My present setup when shorting the output does not kill the oscillations, and it drops the input current from 33mA to 25mA or so.
Concerning the ground lead, the circuit is not grounded at any other point, my PS is floating.
So i would expect that the ground lead of my scope should make no impact on any signal.
Anyway, it does obviously.
I found severall other CMC's measuring 26mH and 22mH, but putting those in for L2/L3 does not make much difference.
It could make the input going to 30mA at 19Khz like your circuit, so thats what i want to try.
The output bulb never went any brighter then the input bulb during all my tests.
Itsu
Hi Nelson,
Would you mind measuring (when you have some time) the DC and also the AC voltage levels across the base and the emitter of your oscillator transistor, when
- the output is unloaded
- the output is shorted
- the output is loaded by the 12V bulb
When the multimeter is in DC volt range, please connect its negative pin to the emitter and its positive to the base of the transistor. I mention this because the average DC level between the base and emitter may shift in oscillators under changing loads and good to know the polarities.
There would be another request from me: checking the output impedance. It could be done by finding a resistor load which reduces the 203 V unloaded DC output to its half value i.e. to 101-102 V.
Be careful not get a shock from the 100 -200V output when doing this. I believe a resistor in the 18-22 kOhm range may already halve the 200V. Perhaps use a 18 k resistor in series with a few kOhm potmeter to adjust it. Half-watt rated resistor(s) are ok for such tests.
These data would further help understand better the operation of this oscillator, I am working on it. If I am mistaken with the load resistor range, sorry for that. 8) you will find it.
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.21, 20:37:20
Hi Nelson,
Would you mind measuring (when you have some time) the DC and also the AC voltage levels across the base and the emitter of your oscillator transistor, when
- the output is unloaded
- the output is shorted
- the output is loaded by the 12V bulb
When the multimeter is in DC volt range, please connect its negative pin to the emitter and its positive to the base of the transistor. I mention this because the average DC level between the base and emitter may shift in oscillators under changing loads and good to know the polarities.
There would be another request from me: checking the output impedance. It could be done by finding a resistor load which reduces the 203 V unloaded DC output to its half value i.e. to 101-102 V.
Be careful not get a shock from the 100 -200V output when doing this. I believe a resistor in the 18-22 kOhm range may already halve the 200V. Perhaps use a 18 k resistor in series with a few kOhm potmeter to adjust it. Half-watt rated resistor(s) are ok for such tests.
These data would further help understand better the operation of this oscillator, I am working on it. If I am mistaken with the load resistor range, sorry for that. 8) you will find it.
Gyula
Hi Gyula ,
The data of the tests you ask . In the impedance test i use the value i have available , i don't have many parts now :( but i try find something to try aproach to 100V
Negative probe in Emitter and positive prove in the base
Shorted DC = -0,96V AC =3,21V
Unload AC = -0,99V AC =3,4V
With bulb connected DC = -1,2V AC =3,27V
With a Resistor 33K =92V in output
Not much to report, still waiting for the MJE18008's.
Using the circuit with the new L1 (2.7mH / 1.6 Ohm) choke and the 22mH CMC for L2/L3 and various caps for C1 and C5.
looks like this circuit has a preference for having a basic oscillation frequency across the collector / emitter of around 7Khz and a double frequency across L2/L3 of 14Khz.
Itsu
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.04.21, 21:33:06
Hi Gyula ,
The data of the tests you ask . In the impedance test i use the value i have available , i don't have many parts now :( but i try find something to try aproach to 100V
Negative probe in Emitter and positive prove in the base
Shorted DC = -0,96V AC =3,21V
Unload AC = -0,99V AC =3,4V
With bulb connected DC = -1,2V AC =3,27V
With a Resistor 33K =92V in output
Hi Nelson,
Thank you for doing these tests. The loading effect of the 33 kOhm resistor that dropped the 203 V DC output to 92 V indicates the possible output resistance of your oscillator is likely in the 35-40 kOhm range.
So the output is not really a 200 V voltage source but rather a current source with that much kOhm internal resistance. This can influence (slow down) for instance the charge up of an electrolytic capacitor from the 200V oscillator output.
Regarding the DC and AC voltages measured between the base and emitter by a DMM indicates the oscillator transistor operates as a switch rather than a linear amplifier I think, more exact deduction can be made by evaluating the waveform across the base-emitter when it will be available.
Here I attempt to give a possible operation principle for this oscillator as I see it.
Case 1: the output is unloaded, there is a certain amount of oscillating power in the circuit, established by the DC input power. Once the circuit oscillates, the impedances the transistor is embedded into are established by voltage and current levels
In the followings I refer to component labels used in your original schematic what I attached below. I edited your original schematic too and attached it also below in which I erased the transistor and the push button to show the coils and capacitors that can mainly influence the operating frequency.
It is possible that the on-off switching of the transistor (if it works as a switch) also changes the frequency when the output is loaded, this can be checked by a scope or a frequency meter, albeit this change may be small.
Case 2: the output is short circuited, the AC impedance of transformer T1 between its pins 2 and 3 decreases significantly to a low value (the short is transformed backwards of course). This low impedance surely changes the operating point of the transistor, so its collector current too. Without seeing the changing waveforms on a scope, I can only assume that this impedance change may reduce the on time of the transistor and the effect of this manifests in a lower input current. Reduced on time involves higher off time hence higher output impedance. And the conditions for oscillation is still maintained with the low impedance transformed back into the circuit.
Your oscillator includes the D1 and D2 diodes and (as I suspected and now your base-emitter voltage data confirmed) these participate in controlling the base-emitter bias voltage i.e. establish the operating point of Q1 after the start up.
The diodes partially rectify the AC oscillating voltage for the base-emitter.
When you push the start button, the 24V positive voltage drives forward current into the base-emitter via the E1 bulb and this current is limited mainly by the 300 Ohm base resistor and the cold resistance of the bulb only. So the initial base-emitter current is 24V / 300 Ohm = 80 mA or
so, neglecting the 13 Ohm bulb and the 2.6 Ohm L1 resistances.
The average DC voltage across the base-emitter is a negative value (by your measurements) which may keep the transistor off but whenever a positive oscillating wave appears on the base, it surely overdrives the negative bias and switches the transistor on again, till the positive waveform lasts.
Case 3: the output is loaded by say the 12 V, 1 W rated bulb, then its (nonlinear) resistance is transformed back to the oscillator via T1, and surely establishes yet another operating point for the transistor.
Let me notice that the changing load conditions (the short or the 12V bulb) across the output forces the oscillator to work less 'actively', on this I mean: the ability to operate under restricted conditions becomes narrower.
I am sure I have not covered all the small operational details in this oscillator, for instance the positive flyback pulse of L1 is steered to the base via C4 to defeat the negative bias, this process substitues the start-up push button.
You have surely noticed in this post that I did not refer to negative resistance in the transistor as it was addressed already above in this thread. The reason is if the operation is really of switching nature, then this is out of question.
And if the transistor is full on all the time and never off, then it works as linear or nearly linear amplifier (many active devices in oscillators work like that), so the base-emitter or the collector-emitter 'junctions' cannot receive excessive reverse bias that would be needed to create a negative resistance region. This question can also be answered after evaluating the waveforms between said electrodes.
Greetings,
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.23, 19:48:28
Hi Nelson,
Thank you for doing these tests. The loading effect of the 33 kOhm resistor that dropped the 203 V DC output to 92 V indicates the possible output resistance of your oscillator is likely in the 35-40 kOhm range.
So the output is not really a 200 V voltage source but rather a current source with that much kOhm internal resistance. This can influence (slow down) for instance the charge up of an electrolytic capacitor from the 200V oscillator output.
Regarding the DC and AC voltages measured between the base and emitter by a DMM indicates the oscillator transistor operates as a switch rather than a linear amplifier I think, more exact deduction can be made by evaluating the waveform across the base-emitter when it will be available.
Here I attempt to give a possible operation principle for this oscillator as I see it.
Case 1: the output is unloaded, there is a certain amount of oscillating power in the circuit, established by the DC input power. Once the circuit oscillates, the impedances the transistor is embedded into are established by voltage and current levels
In the followings I refer to component labels used in your original schematic what I attached below. I edited your original schematic too and attached it also below in which I erased the transistor and the push button to show the coils and capacitors that can mainly influence the operating frequency.
It is possible that the on-off switching of the transistor (if it works as a switch) also changes the frequency when the output is loaded, this can be checked by a scope or a frequency meter, albeit this change may be small.
Case 2: the output is short circuited, the AC impedance of transformer T1 between its pins 2 and 3 decreases significantly to a low value (the short is transformed backwards of course). This low impedance surely changes the operating point of the transistor, so its collector current too. Without seeing the changing waveforms on a scope, I can only assume that this impedance change may reduce the on time of the transistor and the effect of this manifests in a lower input current. Reduced on time involves higher off time hence higher output impedance. And the conditions for oscillation is still maintained with the low impedance transformed back into the circuit.
Your oscillator includes the D1 and D2 diodes and (as I suspected and now your base-emitter voltage data confirmed) these participate in controlling the base-emitter bias voltage i.e. establish the operating point of Q1 after the start up.
The diodes partially rectify the AC oscillating voltage for the base-emitter.
When you push the start button, the 24V positive voltage drives forward current into the base-emitter via the E1 bulb and this current is limited mainly by the 300 Ohm base resistor and the cold resistance of the bulb only. So the initial base-emitter current is 24V / 300 Ohm = 80 mA or
so, neglecting the 13 Ohm bulb and the 2.6 Ohm L1 resistances.
The average DC voltage across the base-emitter is a negative value (by your measurements) which may keep the transistor off but whenever a positive oscillating wave appears on the base, it surely overdrives the negative bias and switches the transistor on again, till the positive waveform lasts.
Case 3: the output is loaded by say the 12 V, 1 W rated bulb, then its (nonlinear) resistance is transformed back to the oscillator via T1, and surely establishes yet another operating point for the transistor.
Let me notice that the changing load conditions (the short or the 12V bulb) across the output forces the oscillator to work less 'actively', on this I mean: the ability to operate under restricted conditions becomes narrower.
I am sure I have not covered all the small operational details in this oscillator, for instance the positive flyback pulse of L1 is steered to the base via C4 to defeat the negative bias, this process substitues the start-up push button.
You have surely noticed in this post that I did not refer to negative resistance in the transistor as it was addressed already above in this thread. The reason is if the operation is really of switching nature, then this is out of question.
And if the transistor is full on all the time and never off, then it works as linear or nearly linear amplifier (many active devices in oscillators work like that), so the base-emitter or the collector-emitter 'junctions' cannot receive excessive reverse bias that would be needed to create a negative resistance region. This question can also be answered after evaluating the waveforms between said electrodes.
Greetings,
Gyula
Gyula ,
thanks for your explanation so far :) until now.
To we understand the circuit seems much more complex then the simplicity of circuit itself :)
I have only a doubt about (nonlinear) resistance assigned by the filament output bulb; if indeed use the small resistive bulb, was a bulb of led, that is linear i think, how it will apply that point you explain?
Hi Nelson,
A LED diode is more nonlinear than a bulb with filament, unfortunately.
The filament bulb at the output of your oscillator reaches a certain brightness and then its resistance remains stabil.
But its resistance started from a cold value of course which was say 13 Ohm and during the start up process of the oscillator from the switch-on time, this 13 Ohm increases nonlinearly to a higher value, depending on the output voltage across it. This is what I meant on nonlinear.
Does this answer your question?
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.23, 21:29:44
Hi Nelson,
A LED diode is more nonlinear than a bulb with filament, unfortunately.
The filament bulb at the output of your oscillator reaches a certain brightness and then its resistance remains stabil.
But its resistance started from a cold value of course which was say 13 Ohm and during the start up process of the oscillator from the switch-on time, this 13 Ohm increases nonlinearly to a higher value, depending on the output voltage across it. This is what I meant on nonlinear.
Does this answer your question?
Gyula
Gyula , thanks , by you answer , I mistakenly thought that the LED lamp was linear due to the existing internal driver .
Hi Nelson,
Okay, and my mistake was when I answered to you I had considered LED diodes only rather than LED bulbs. :)
What can safely be said is that LED bulbs can be less nonlinear than LED diodes because most (but not all) LED bulbs include an internal driver, as you wrote, i.e. a DC/DC or AC/DC converter with regulated output for their LED diodes.
So the best we can do is to test our LED bulbs in advance how linear or nonlinear they are if we wish to know their real power consumption.
Please have a look at this video in which a LED bulb is shown inside out, with input voltage and current measurements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Roc5TLdnw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Roc5TLdnw)
Here is the chart I attached from the video on how the DC input current changed in the function of input voltage. The power consumption of this bulb, however, changed between 4.6W and 4.8W only when the input voltage was varied from 8V to 30V. The exception was at 7V input where the input power was 3W, and notice that at and under 6V input voltage there was no or only negligible current consumption.
Greetings
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.24, 13:42:24
Hi Nelson,
Okay, and my mistake was when I answered to you I had considered LED diodes only rather than LED bulbs. :)
What can safely be said is that LED bulbs can be less nonlinear than LED diodes because most (but not all) LED bulbs include an internal driver, as you wrote, i.e. a DC/DC or AC/DC converter with regulated output for their LED diodes.
So the best we can do is to test our LED bulbs in advance how linear or nonlinear they are if we wish to know their real power consumption.
Please have a look at this video in which a LED bulb is shown inside out, with input voltage and current measurements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Roc5TLdnw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Roc5TLdnw)
Here is the chart I attached from the video on how the DC input current changed in the function of input voltage. The power consumption of this bulb, however, changed between 4.6W and 4.8W only when the input voltage was varied from 8V to 30V. The exception was at 7V input where the input power was 3W, and notice that at and under 6V input voltage there was no or only negligible current consumption.
Greetings
Gyula
Hi Gyula ,
My apologies for the delay in my response, but I have been working overnight 3d printing face shields for the community, and thus, I have been more active during the night.
Thanks by the explanation. The bulb i used is a small one of 3W 230V 300 lumen . But i had never thought about this topic of be linear or non linearity at least from this perspective.
Thanks by the tip ;) .
I adjusted the sim / diagram to have the same component notation as the original diagram from Nelson, see below.
I kept L2 / L3 instead of T1 as this is more precise i think.
Still no MJE18008.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.24, 19:03:19
I adjusted the sim / diagram to have the same component notation as the original diagram from Nelson, see below.
I kept L2 / L3 instead of T1 as this is more precise i think.
Still no MJE18008.
Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
Thanks again by the sim diagram . Where i can find all the libraries you use ? I install sim but seems , miss some of the libraries because i get error in diodes and transistor .
Please can you point me to some address or something where i can get that libraries ?
Many thanks
Nelson,
There are probably severall ways to get them, i google for specific LTspice components like "LTspice mje18008"
or go to Mouser.com who often offer some simulation models when looking for mje18008.
Anyway, below attached the .Model for the mje18008 and the UF4007.
What i did is go the my local LTspice lib folder and in there you have subdirectories like
cmp, sub, sym.
In the cmp folter you will find the severall "standart.xxx files, one is named "standart.bjt"
and another "standart.dio".
I put the below mje18008 specification line on top of the "standart.bjt" file, and the UF4007
specification line on top of the "standart.dio" file.
In LTspice you now can select them under "components , npn" and "components , diode", then right mouse click, then pick New transistor.
Same for a diode.
.model mje18008 NPN(IS=1e-09 BF=16.2807 NF=0.85 VAF=17.9534 IKF=8.91667 ISE=6.94438e-12 NE=3.38189 BR=1.62807 NR=0.82571 VAR=5.01712 IKR=3.65604 ISC=4.43005e-13 NC=3.99216 RB=2.7149 IRB=0.1 RBM=0.1 RE=0.0001 RC=0.0871278 XTB=0.121787 XTI=1 EG=1.05 CJE=4.65558e-09 VJE=0.446548 MJE=0.330981 TF=1e-08 XTF=1.83198 VTF=3.88526 ITF=0.338593 CJC=3.83049e-10 VJC=0.4 MJC=0.456299 XCJC=0.799262 FC=0.8 CJS=0 VJS=0.75 MJS=0.5 TR=9.46239e-06 PTF=0 KF=0 AF=1
.model UF4007 D (N=3.97671 IS=3.28772E-006 RS=0.149734 EG=1.11 XTI=3 CJO=2.92655E-011 VJ=0.851862 M=0.334552 FC=0.5 TT=1.84973E-007 BV=1000 IBV=0.2 KF=0 AF=1)
Hope that helps. Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.24, 20:09:45
Nelson,
There are probably severall ways to get them, i google for specific LTspice components like "LTspice mje18008"
or go to Mouser.com who often offer some simulation models when looking for mje18008.
Anyway, below attached the .Model for the mje18008 and the UF4007.
What i did is go the my local LTspice lib folder and in there you have subdirectories like
cmp, sub, sym.
In the cmp folter you will find the severall "standart.xxx files, one is named "standart.bjt"
and another "standart.dio".
I put the below mje18008 specification line on top of the "standart.bjt" file, and the UF4007
specification line on top of the "standart.dio" file.
In LTspice you now can select them under "components , npn" and "components , diode", then right mouse click, then pick New transistor.
Same for a diode.
.model mje18008 NPN(IS=1e-09 BF=16.2807 NF=0.85 VAF=17.9534 IKF=8.91667 ISE=6.94438e-12 NE=3.38189 BR=1.62807 NR=0.82571 VAR=5.01712 IKR=3.65604 ISC=4.43005e-13 NC=3.99216 RB=2.7149 IRB=0.1 RBM=0.1 RE=0.0001 RC=0.0871278 XTB=0.121787 XTI=1 EG=1.05 CJE=4.65558e-09 VJE=0.446548 MJE=0.330981 TF=1e-08 XTF=1.83198 VTF=3.88526 ITF=0.338593 CJC=3.83049e-10 VJC=0.4 MJC=0.456299 XCJC=0.799262 FC=0.8 CJS=0 VJS=0.75 MJS=0.5 TR=9.46239e-06 PTF=0 KF=0 AF=1
.model UF4007 D (N=3.97671 IS=3.28772E-006 RS=0.149734 EG=1.11 XTI=3 CJO=2.92655E-011 VJ=0.851862 M=0.334552 FC=0.5 TT=1.84973E-007 BV=1000 IBV=0.2 KF=0 AF=1)
Hope that helps. Itsu
Hi Itsu,
many thanks , i will take a shot , to try include the data in the Lib files . ;)
Hi Itsu,
I attempted to do as per your description but the mje18008 and the uf4007 does not appear in the list when I click on the Pick a new transistor (or diode). I have LTSpice XVII, latest update was on April 16, 2020. Probably Nelson uses a similar version because I get the same error message for these two new models. I edited sussessfully the two standard libraries, needed system admin rights.
I can continue tomorrow only, and no need for any hurry, of course.
Thanks
Gyula
Itsu, I found the problem, I thought those lib files are in the Program Files folder and I edited those (this needed admin access from me) but in fact there is another folder for LTSpice in the Documents folder and editing them (no need for any admin access) solved the problem.
By the way, in this link there is a huge collection of component libraries which can be copied to the cmp folder:
http://ltwiki.org/?title=Components_Library_and_Circuits (http://ltwiki.org/?title=Components_Library_and_Circuits)
Thanks,
Gyula
ok guys, sorry for the confusion, the lib folder is indeed somewhere in your "users/..../documents directory.
I also am just a novice as it comes to LTspice and finding my way around with the help of many tutorials and friends here on the forum.
I did not see that library link before though, so thanks Gyula.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
I am not an expert either in using LTspice, I use it only occasionally. There was an active forum on it in a separate and open yahoo group and when Yahoo deleted all technical groups, they moved to here: https://groups.io/g/LTspice (https://groups.io/g/LTspice)
Sometimes I scroll the messages if I need answers to some problems, lots of topic have been accumulated during the years, lots of simulation problems have been discussed in connection with specific circuits. And there are experts on using the software and give advice.
Membership is open for anyone.
I have spent some time on this oscillator but could not improve it yet. Your latest asc file works for me and gives the same (small) output you get.
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
ok, thanks, i will have a look overthere.
Concerning my latest .asc file, it still uses some guessed value's for the inductors, so it could be there is something to win.
Especially the T1 (L2/L3) value's could be way off, they even could have some transformer relation as i did find some CMC like components with a 1:4 or 1:10 relation and low ohmage.
Itsu
Did you watch and pay atention to my short video ?
Hi AG, i did both.
Was there something special i needed to look at?
Itsu
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.25, 18:55:58
Hi Itsu,
I am not an expert either in using LTspice, I use it only occasionally. There was an active forum on it in a separate and open yahoo group and when Yahoo deleted all technical groups, they moved to here: https://groups.io/g/LTspice (https://groups.io/g/LTspice)
Sometimes I scroll the messages if I need answers to some problems, lots of topic have been accumulated during the years, lots of simulation problems have been discussed in connection with specific circuits. And there are experts on using the software and give advice.
Membership is open for anyone.
I have spent some time on this oscillator but could not improve it yet. Your latest asc file works for me and gives the same (small) output you get.
Gyula
Hi Gyula and Itsu,
I am not a regular user of Ltspice, I usually do not do simulations, but I was curious about the "reliability" of simulation in cases of circuits, said to be less conventional.
Unfortunately I had an episode connected with health issues that made me still not test Ltspice more closely. Maybe Tomorrow i could return again and give a try with the simulation of the circuit .
Many thanks by the links , i already place all the libraries and now only the UF4007 , are fault .
Hi Nelson,
I hope you recover soon.
From this link http://ltwiki.org/?title=Components_Library_and_Circuits you can download this zipped file
http://ltwiki.org/files/LargeCollection.zip and there is the standard.dio file in it what you can copy into the cmp subdirectory of the LTSpice file in your /user/Documents directory. No need to edit the parameters in it, just copy and replace the old standard.dio with this new one, it includes UF4007 too. I attach that particular file for you in a zipped format, includes only the standard.dio file.
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.26, 20:07:59
Hi Nelson,
I hope you recover soon.
From this link http://ltwiki.org/?title=Components_Library_and_Circuits you can download this zipped file
http://ltwiki.org/files/LargeCollection.zip and there is the standard.dio file in it what you can copy into the cmp subdirectory of the LTSpice file in your /user/Documents directory. No need to edit the parameters in it, just copy and replace the old standard.dio with this new one, it includes UF4007 too. I attach that particular file for you in a zipped format, includes only the standard.dio file.
Gyula
Hi Gyula ,
I already did that when you publish your first post about this subject , but seems even with that zip that include the majority of data the UF4007 give error.
I already delete the lib and put the lib from the zip but the same . I'm working in Mac and could be some problem in permissions of files . I will need to search about this issue but many thanks ;) .
NEW DATA
I already confirm and the UF4007 is present in the lib but even that ltspice say that it could find it , lol . i replace the diodes by a standard diodes , by suggestion of LTspice.
So it work now . Lets start test it !
Okay Nelson it is good that it works now. Just an idea: if you right-click any one of those diodes then you can choose "Pick a new diode" icon in the appearing window and you may then choose another diode type from the list you know as a fast switching diode and replace the standard diodes you had to choose.
Here I attach the file I use from Itsu (he uploaded it above) and I noticed now that the 470 uF capacitor after the diode bridge across the DC output "suffocates" the circuit in the simulator and no DC output is received. I mean if I use 470 pF instead of 470 uF temporarily, then a DC 12 V or so appears immediately across the output. And we can continue from this to tweak the circuit and evaluate. So far the 470 uF bogged the circuit down... :D
In the screenshot below the green waveform is the AC voltage across L1, the blue trace is the DC output voltage and the red waveform is the collector current.
Regards
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.26, 21:36:59
Okay Nelson it is good that it works now. Just an idea: if you right-click any one of those diodes then you can choose "Pick a new diode" icon in the appearing window and you may then choose another diode type from the list you know as a fast switching diode and replace the standard diodes you had to choose.
Here I attach the file I use from Itsu (he uploaded it above) and I noticed now that the 470 uF capacitor after the diode bridge across the DC output "suffocates" the circuit in the simulator and no DC output is received. I mean if I use 470 pF instead of 470 uF temporarily, then a DC 12 V or so appears immediately across the output. And we can continue from this to tweak the circuit and evaluate. So far the 470 uF bogged the circuit down... :D
In the screenshot below the green waveform is the AC voltage across L1, the blue trace is the DC output voltage and the red waveform is the collector current.
Regards
Gyula
Let's Test it ! thanks
Way to go guys.
I had the same problem using the big 470uF cap, so i used smaller ones before (6uF).
I think its caused by the slow charging rate (low output current).
If you wait enough (60 second or so) it will slowly have build up.
Not sure you guys already know, but:
doing a "cntr / LEFT mouse click" on the f.i. (red) Ic(Q1) readout in the trace screen, it will display the average and rms value of that trace.
doing a RIGHT mouse click only shows a screen where you can select Attached cursor (none, 1 or 2) to set in the trace screen to measure like frequency between 2 peaks etc.
pushing the left alt key when showing the current symbol over a component (like E1) shows a power meter and creates power trace.
Nice tool.
Itsu
The coil L1 (chokes and coils) some just dont hack it, Nelson used one of the larger cores around 4mh
RS do a 4.7mh part no 675 5324 @ 3.9R or a 3.3mh 675 5311 @ 2.37R nothing in between or wind it your self
but skrimping here will down grade the R BEMF.
The rest of the circuit distorts the wave form and ads another cycle in my device so one in two out
thats why i said look at the output wave.
So the device is nothing special as it stands but it's truly is a traing device, from an educational poit of view!
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.27, 08:46:40
Way to go guys.
I had the same problem using the big 470uF cap, so i used smaller ones before (6uF).
I think its caused by the slow charging rate (low output current).
If you wait enough (60 second or so) it will slowly have build up.
Not sure you guys already know, but:
doing a "cntr / LEFT mouse click" on the f.i. (red) Ic(Q1) readout in the trace screen, it will display the average and rms value of that trace.
doing a RIGHT mouse click only shows a screen where you can select Attached cursor (none, 1 or 2) to set in the trace screen to measure like frequency between 2 peaks etc.
pushing the left alt key when showing the current symbol over a component (like E1) shows a power meter and creates power trace.
Nice tool.
Itsu
Itsu , many thanks by the tips about hotkeys ;) really easier that way! I start think the problem it's related to the fact that I'm running LTspice in Mac Os, because i not able to overcome some small issues . Now i able to run but without same result you and Gyula have , i will post later some of my shots , but maybe i will try to virtualize a machine with windows and try in windows plataform .
Another question , is how is it possible to simulate the push bottom function, like in the real circuit to start the oscillation? Is that possible ? Like i told yesterday , I don't usually use Ltspice to simulate circuits, and all free tips are welcome.
PS -Im waiting to receive a call from a friend of mine , to try borrow a LCR Meter . Maybe i could have today the right values O0
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2020.04.27, 11:05:18
The coil L1 (chokes and coils) some just dont hack it, Nelson used one of the larger cores around 4mh
RS do a 4.7mh part no 675 5324 @ 3.9R or a 3.3mh 675 5311 @ 2.37R nothing in between or wind it your self
but skrimping here will down grade the R BEMF.
The rest of the circuit distorts the wave form and ads another cycle in my device so one in two out
thats why i said look at the output wave.
So the device is nothing special as it stands but it's truly is a traing device, from an educational poit of view!
Hello AlienGrey, happy to see you here, and to know that you are trying to duplicate the circuit. I'm trying to obtain a lcr meter to test the inductance from the coils , maybe today i will be able to measure the coils . It seems to me that your guess about the coils is not very assertive, so I advise you to wait for official values.
If you consider nothing special the circuit , and you feel is easy explain some characteristics shown, me and probably whoever follows the process of "dissecting" the circuit, would appreciate your opinion, being no less valid than what has already been mentioned.
We must not forget that you were one of those responsible, because I shared this same circuit at your request, right? In this way, the best contribution you could give me was to participate too. Many thanks
Hi Nelson,
I removed C9 which I put earlier in parallel with L2 as shown above in my previous post. And with these other capacitor values:
C3=100n
C4=10n ic=8 (initial condition 8V)
C5=10n
C6=220n
C8=470p
and with 1000 kOhm (i.e. no load) across the output, the DC voltage is 28V.
If I load the output with 10k resistor, the DC output voltage reduces to 14.8V. If I reduce the 10k to 9k, then the oscillator bogs down.
Note that the puffer capacitor is C5 only, (220 nF) and if I apply say 1 uF for C8, when the 10 k load is also there, the oscillator bogs down also.
This is a certain progress but a small one. Perhaps your inductance measurements will bring simulation results much closer to your working circuit. I attached the circuit file and 2 screenshots, the first is with 1000 k load, the second is with the 10 k load. The latter is intended to see the waveforms with the 10 k load versus that of the first without the load. There seems to be only amplitude differencies and a small frequency difference from no load 9.05 kHz to the loaded 9.175 kHz.
Green is the voltage across L1, blue is output DC voltage, red is the collector current and yellow is the base current.
It is interesting, that current flows in diodes D1 and D2 only during the initial condition in C4 takes place which lasts for a few us, then never again during the full 10 ms transient analysis time.
Gyula
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.27, 08:46:40
Way to go guys.
I had the same problem using the big 470uF cap, so i used smaller ones before (6uF).
I think its caused by the slow charging rate (low output current).
If you wait enough (60 second or so) it will slowly have build up.
Not sure you guys already know, but:
doing a "cntr / LEFT mouse click" on the f.i. (red) Ic(Q1) readout in the trace screen, it will display the average and rms value of that trace.
doing a RIGHT mouse click only shows a screen where you can select Attached cursor (none, 1 or 2) to set in the trace screen to measure like frequency between 2 peaks etc.
pushing the left alt key when showing the current symbol over a component (like E1) shows a power meter and creates power trace.
Nice tool.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Thanks for the tips, the power meter and the power trace created is what I did not know about, a useful tool indeed. O0
One notice to the average and rms value displays: it always calculates them according to the displayed number of cycles, i.e. if you say expand a waveform to see it closer its shape in detail so that there are say 2 or 3 cycles remaining instead of say the total 15, then the values may differ from the ones calculated for the total simulation time for the 15 cycles.
Gyula
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.04.27, 13:11:22
Itsu , many thanks by the tips about hotkeys ;) really easier that way! I start think the problem it's related to the fact that I'm running LTspice in Mac Os, because i not able to overcome some small issues . Now i able to run but without same result you and Gyula have , i will post later some of my shots , but maybe i will try to virtualize a machine with windows and try in windows plataform .
Another question , is how is it possible to simulate the push bottom function, like in the real circuit to start the oscillation? Is that possible ? Like i told yesterday , I don't usually use Ltspice to simulate circuits, and all free tips are welcome.
PS -Im waiting to receive a call from a friend of mine , to try borrow a LCR Meter . Maybe i could have today the right values O0
Nelson,
it could be there are some differences in using LTspice on a MAC, but basically it should be the same i think.
Concerning the switch (push button), there is a switch available in LTspice, but its operated by timing, not by hand.
I tried to incorperate that switch, but it did not work properly, so member Frederik added a working switch and also included some LTSpice statements for using the MJE18008 and UF4007, see his .asc file here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg80989#msg80989
Lateron i received a tip from member poynt99 that you can also use the "initial condition" attribute for a cap or coil (see partzman post also there).
So now i use this IC attribute for C4 (IC=1 or 8 like Gyula did) to set an initial voltage (1V or 8V) on C4 so to simulate the switch putting a voltage on C4.
Great for the LCR meter, i wonder what those value's are.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.27, 15:25:34
Nelson,
it could be there are some differences in using LTspice on a MAC, but basically it should be the same i think.
Concerning the switch (push button), there is a switch available in LTspice, but its operated by timing, not by hand.
I tried to incorperate that switch, but it did not work properly, so member Frederik added a working switch and also included some LTSpice statements for using the MJE18008 and UF4007, see his .asc file here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg80989#msg80989
Lateron i received a tip from member poynt99 that you can also use the "initial condition" attribute for a cap or coil (see partzman post also there).
So now i use this IC attribute for C4 (IC=1 or 8 like Gyula did) to set an initial voltage (1V or 8V) on C4 so to simulate the switch putting a voltage on C4.
Great for the LCR meter, i wonder what those value's are.
Itsu
Itsu and Gyula ,
Thank you very much for your patience, and yes is a bit different from Windows version ,I can assure you of that.
On Mac, it seems that there are 3 locations for the libraries, and I finally managed to get it working without component limitations as before.
I had to use the netlist command and read the code, to understand where LTspice was going to look for libraries. After that everything became easier, having just copied the libraries that previously included MJ18008 and UF4007. I also added a large collection of information and examples from the link that Gyula provided.
Subject closed on this topic :) from Ltspice :P .
Regarding the measurement of coils inductance, I hope to have some updates today. O0
Hi Itsu and Gyula ,
I can now measure the coil inductance values with a LCR meter borrowed from my friend Luis ;) nice Guy the equipment is VICI DM4070.
The L1 have 3,07mH and L2/L3 have each one 13mH. I tried to do some simulations with LTspice, but so far I have not managed to keep the oscillation active.
However, when doing Transient Analysis simulation,
with a lower time value, you can see something strange or promising.
Given my lack of experience in Ltspice, I would like to have your opinion, Gyula and Itsu.
I have attached some shots, which I would like you to comment on.
I am going to dinner now, I am waiting for your comments. Thank you
Hi Nelson,
thanks for the value's, now we can close in on a real replication, searching my junkbox......
Concerning your sim, i was able to get it oscillating with your same value's (L's and C's).
Green is the emitter to ground trace.
But i don't understand your .tran statement.
Mine is at least 3 attributes (stop time, time to start saving data and max steptime) while i only see 2 in yours and the 500u seems the be the stop time.
Could you specify which are what?
Also not known in the trace screenshots is what is what.
Anyway, i think you point to the negative value's in your traces, which could be normal, looking to the current symbol through the bulb (E1).
Indeed much different layout on the MAC as in Windows.
Itsu
By the way, when placing a voltage probe (red probe), it is always compared to ground level.
If you DON'T want it to be compared to ground level, you can HOLD the left mouse button and drag the mouse pointer to the other point you want as reference (voltage probe turns black) and release the button.
It will now measure between those set points.
Itsu
Could it be that your sim is not oscillating because your selected components (L1, L2/L3, C4 etc.) lack some real life properties like series resistance, parallel resistance, parallel capacitance)?
I normally use only components from the sim database which have real life properties specified, like this L1, see screenshot below.
I only editted the inductance value and series resistance to match.
Itsu
Hi Folks,
I run the sim with the measured L values and the capacitor values shown in the MAC schematic. (By the way, Nelson, with the meter you may wish to check the nF capacitor values too.)
I think in the .tran statement in the MAC schema the 50ms means the Stop time and the 50 us means the Maximum Time Step within the 50 ms.
I found the oscillator stops at 18.7 ms as you can see below. When I change the 400 uF puffer cap to 200 uF, then oscillator stops at around 10 ms, strangely enough.
Nelson, I will try to analyze your sim displays later on, please try to make some more comments too.
Gyula
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.27, 19:41:55
Hi Nelson,
thanks for the value's, now we can close in on a real replication, searching my junkbox......
Concerning your sim, i was able to get it oscillating with your same value's (L's and C's).
Green is the emitter to ground trace.
But i don't understand your .tran statement.
Mine is at least 3 attributes (stop time, time to start saving data and max steptime) while i only see 2 in yours and the 500u seems the be the stop time.
Could you specify which are what?
Also not known in the trace screenshots is what is what.
Anyway, i think you point to the negative value's in your traces, which could be normal, looking to the current symbol through the bulb (E1).
Indeed much different layout on the MAC as in Windows.
Itsu
Itsu ,
About tran statement :
Step 50 ms ending at 50us - I will add the same tran statement like yours .
About the trace screenshots:
The are labeled on the top V1 to the input and E2 is the output bulb . The other formula you see is the power calculation that tell you the Wattage output .
About the properties of components i did not change anything in the values . Only by example i left shots of l1 values .
I go correct the tran statement and i already post .
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.27, 20:23:47
Hi Folks,
I run the sim with the measured L values and the capacitor values shown in the MAC schematic. (By the way, Nelson, with the meter you may wish to check the nF capacitor values too.)
I think in the .tran statement in the MAC schema the 50ms means the Stop time and the 50 us means the Maximum Time Step within the 50 ms.
I found the oscillator stops at 18.7 ms as you can see below. When I change the 400 uF puffer cap to 200 uF, then oscillator stops at around 10 ms, strangely enough.
Nelson, I will try to analyze your sim displays later on, please try to make some more comments too.
Gyula
Gyula,
mine stops also around 20ms when having the same value's and having series resistance of 1.6 Ohm for L1.
But L1 series resistance should be 2.6 Ohm as measured by Nelson.
It then stops even earlier.
But lowering the coupling factor to 0.7 of L2/L3 makes it run again.
Itsu
This is the input power during the 10 ms oscillation time (with 200 uF puffer cap across the output).
The negative input power is because the simulator consider power taken out from voltage or current source as consumed hence gives it a negative sign. (not to be mixed up with the oscillator producing power backwards).
Itsu, ok for the 2.6 Ohm, will modify it.
Okay also on the coupling factor, thanks. But less coupling reduces output power in the load I am afraid.
Will continue tomorrow. Good night Folks.
Gyula
Itsu , i already put the same values of .tran statement , but of course you could not see the detail until decrease the values .
Also hope now you understand the shots . V1 is the input voltage source V1 and E2 is the bulb N004 plus output of bridge .
The math is very nice function from LTspice , and he only make the math to you and if you see well the values in formulas are correct.
Hi Itsu and Gyula ,
I will try measure all the caps tomorrow with the LCR meter and after i will update .
About the LTspice :
I lower the coupling factor to 0.7 of L2/L3 like you did Itsu , and use a 10ms in Transient Analysis simulation .
I left the last shots for today . My question is as follows:
The current in E2 (Follow the scheme) has a negative peak of 168.39mA at 0,05ms with a peak voltage of 8.0092V at N004 giving a 1.3307W .
The current in input 9.8mA at V1 and 24V at V1, giving a 224.49mW of power consumed .
My question is as follows:
Why does LTspice show a lower consumption value in V1 at the entrance, compared to the value displayed at the exit at E2, even if it is in a small fraction of time?
Is LTspice supposed to present this type of values, being a reference software in electronic simulation?
Once again I thank you for your availability on this topic.
Have a good night !
Hi Nelson thanks for the comments and yes I did ask you for information on the device you have so kindly
donated to us I am very grateful for, as I have said my build of the device (my birds nest version) :)
works very well but just about consumes 11 ma at 14 volts about 154mw and dimly lights a 1W LED
device. But that's what I get with the components and coils I have and sticking to the original circuit drawing
and coil guess work.
Is the above Itsue drawing I assume you have posted an amendment with the 'actual' measured
component values ? could you confirm as I will then make another test circuit and hopefully get better results
not that i am in any way unhappy with my original results.
Many thanks again to you Nelson for your gifted help, your a star!
AG
PS I'm not a spice user my self
Nelson,
thanks for the screenshots.
The trace readouts (like V(N005,N004)*I(E2) etc.) are kind of cryptic, but if you know the components (E2 is output bulb) it kind of makes sense now.
Do i understand correctly that after changing the coupling factor to 0.7 it now runs (at least longer then 10ms)?.
Your first post (#451 no running) shows all value's return to 0 after some initial transients which could been caused by the charged up C4 (to 8V).
Your second post (#452 running?) shows sustained oscillations for at least 10ms.
Why it shows more out then in in that situation i can't tell you, sorry.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.28, 08:27:20
Nelson,
thanks for the screenshots.
The trace readouts (like V(N005,N004)*I(E2) etc.) are kind of cryptic, but if you know the components (E2 is output bulb) it kind of makes sense now.
Do i understand correctly that after changing the coupling factor to 0.7 it now runs (at least longer then 10ms)?.
Your first post (#451 no running) shows all value's return to 0 after some initial transients which could been caused by the charged up C4 (to 8V).
Your second post (#452 running?) shows sustained oscillations for at least 10ms.
Why it shows more out then in in that situation i can't tell you, sorry.
Itsu
hello Itsu good morning,
Regarding the trace readouts of Lt spice:
When you place the cursor to measure the nodes on your Ltspice diagram, does it not number the Nodes? In my case Ltspice starts by numbering N 001 when i try plote the voltage. This is the reason why you see in the power calculation formula, V (N001 * I V1) .
How is the identification of your nods presented to you, when you try to plot the voltage? I think it must be something similar, since all nodes must be identified in order for Ltspice to be able to perform calculations.
about coupling factor .
I change the coupling factor to 7 to use the same value you use, but I could run the transient test with coupling factor 8 or 9 with better result .
As I mentioned earlier, I am not a regular user of Ltspice, but I was curious to know what the simulation results would be, in so-called less common situations, and to check the Ltspice's analysis capacity, to check this circuit, that is the reason why I ask, how does a software, which is a reference in electronic simulation, present values that it is not supposed to present.
I am not calling into question the reliability of Ltspice, as I believe that there may be some justification for this behavior.
But I'm really curious!
I hope I'm not boring with this topic, and I appreciate your understanding.
I will update with more information throughout the day.
Hi Nelson,
Good morning! Thanks for your 'ultimo' circuit file, I have just run it and there is an Error Log created after each run, I quote the relevant text:
Error on line 2 : l1 n006 0 3.07mh ipk=0.55 rser=2,6 rpar=177900 cpar=4.716p
Unknown parameter "6"
It means you put a comma instead of a dot in the value of the series resistance 2.6 Ohm, so the simulator run with 2 Ohm only.
This error cannot influence too much your results and questions but please rerun the circuit with the 2.6 Ohm and try to upload the same screenshots, just to avoid anyproblems avoidable,
Later I will attempt to find answers of course, bare with me, :)
Gyula
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2020.04.28, 00:19:45
Hi Nelson thanks for the comments and yes I did ask you for information on the device you have so kindly
donated to us I am very grateful for, as I have said my build of the device (my birds nest version) :)
works very well but just about consumes 11 ma at 14 volts about 154mw and dimly lights a 1W LED
device. But that's what I get with the components and coils I have and sticking to the original circuit drawing
and coil guess work.
Is the above Itsue drawing I assume you have posted an amendment with the 'actual' measured
component values ? could you confirm as I will then make another test circuit and hopefully get better results
not that i am in any way unhappy with my original results.
Many thanks again to you Nelson for your gifted help, your a star!
AG
PS I'm not a spice user my self
Good morning and,
Thank you for your words and for your participation in this topic.
I would like you to have a little patience, until we found new answers regarding the circuit.
The data to the coils is L1 have 3,07mH and L2/L3 have each one 13mH.
I hope that with this data, you will be able to replicate with better results.
Finally, I must say that this type of work requires a lot of perseverance, so you should be prepared for long hours of experimentation if you want to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
I hope you have a great day.
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.28, 09:22:06
Hi Nelson,
Good morning! Thanks for your 'ultimo' circuit file, I have just run it and there is an Error Log created after each run, I quote the relevant text:
Error on line 2 : l1 n006 0 3.07mh ipk=0.55 rser=2,6 rpar=177900 cpar=4.716p
Unknown parameter "6"
It means you put a comma instead of a dot in the value of the series resistance 2.6 Ohm, so the simulator run with 2 Ohm only.
This error cannot influence too much your results and questions but please rerun the circuit with the 2.6 Ohm and try to upload the same screenshots, just to avoid anyproblems avoidable,
Later I will attempt to find answers of course, bare with me, :)
Gyula
Gyula good morning !
thanks ! i Will correct and update fast i can ;)
Modified - wouldn't it be better to tell me at what points should i take measurements so that they are common with your measurements?
I suggested measuring at E1 and E2 so we would have common measurement points, which would make it easier to compare results between us.
Well, the E2 bulb is in series with the 200 uF capacitor in your 'ultimo' schematic. Is that intentional? Or the bulb should be directly across the output?
Hi Itsu and Gyula ,
new data with the vaue error corrected in L1 .
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.28, 09:40:22
Well, the E2 bulb is in series with the 200 uF capacitor in your 'ultimo' schematic. Is that intentional? Or the bulb should be directly across the output?
Gyula ,
If I understand your question well, what is the reason for E2 to be in series with the 200uf capacitor?
Isn't it the same in your scheme and Itsu? I didn't change anything in the original diagram. can you be more clear? thanks
Yes, it was also in series of course in our simulation but I mean in your videos when you loaded the DC output with the 12V bulb then it was not in series with the capacitor but in parallel with the output.
I understand that you wish to figure out in the simulation why the instanteneous output power level is higher than the input one, right?
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.28, 09:54:18
Yes, it was also in series of course in our simulation but I mean in your videos when you loaded the DC output with the 12V bulb then it was not in series with the capacitor but in parallel with the output.
I understand that you wish to figure out in the simulation why the instanteneous output power level is higher than the input one, right?
Gyula
Gyula ,
Now I understand your question.
Gyula the small lamps E1 and E2 have always been in series since the beginning, both in videos and diagrams.
As I explained, both served to have a visual idea of the current at the entrance and exit of the circuit .He had explained that given the lack of equipment, it was an "easy" way to sense the current that flowed when charging the capacitor or when shorting.I had even mentioned that the circuit could work without the same lamps.
I hope I have clarified your doubts regarding your question. Many thanks
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.04.28, 10:08:35
Gyula ,
Now I understand your question.
Gyula the small lamps E1 and E2 have always been in series since the beginning, both in videos and diagrams.
As I explained, both served to have a visual idea of the current at the entrance and exit of the circuit .He had explained that given the lack of equipment, it was an "easy" way to sense the current that flowed when charging the capacitor or when shorting.I had even mentioned that the circuit could work without the same lamps.
I hope I have clarified your doubts regarding your question. Many thanks
Hi Nelson,
Well, in your 3rd video on your working oscillator, if I see it correctly, you shorted the black and red colored wires and the 12V bulb was lit with fair brightness. In that moment the bulb was put in parallel with the output of the bridge rectifier, no? i.e. the bulb loaded directly the DC output. This is why the bulb gave the brightness as seen in the snapshot picture below, is this correct?
If this E2 bulb was not in parallel with the DC output in this test, then how was it connected? :)
Thanks,
Gyula
PS on your 3rd video I mean the one as indicated in Itsu's post here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg80986#msg80986 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg80986#msg80986)
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.28, 11:00:27
Hi Nelson,
Well, in your 3rd video on your working oscillator, if I see it correctly, you shorted the black and red colored wires and the 12V bulb was lit with fair brightness. In that moment the bulb was put in parallel with the output of the bridge rectifier, no? i.e. the bulb loaded directly the DC output. This is why the bulb gave the brightness as seen in the snapshot picture below, is this correct?
If this E2 bulb was not in parallel with the DC output in this test, then how was it connected? :)
Thanks,
Gyula
PS on your 3rd video I mean the one as indicated in Itsu's post here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg80986#msg80986 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg80986#msg80986)
Hi Gyula ,
In all the videos E2 Bulb is in series, exactly like this represented in the scheme that I drew and shared since the first day in OU. The same was redesigned by Itsu who kept it faithful to the original, and that is the reason why it is also represented in this way in the LTspice scheme in series .
The E1 and E2 works like current monitor on input and output .
when I shorted the black and red colored wires, i'm shorting the rectified output bridge , where E2 is in series with the plus of the bride output, hence the reason why it shines when I short the red and black wire.
If E2 were in parallel at the output, wouldn't I need to short the output wires for E2 to light up ?!
Was I clear enough now in this explanation?
Dear Nelson,
I always understood the E2 bulb was in series with the output. However, when you connected the black and red wires together, in that moment a bulb became connected in parallel with the DC output, no? This is what I am saying.... 8) :)
See the attached schema, red circle is the red wire, black circle is the black wire. Is that correct?
I do not mean the bulb was always in parallel with the output, only for the moments you shorted the two wires. :D And very likely whenever you charged up the 470 uF capacitor from the oscillator , the E2 bulb was still in series of course, the capacitor got charge via the bulb, right?
I hope this is okay now? :D ;)
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.28, 12:51:52
Dear Nelson,
I always understood the E2 bulb was in series with the output. However, when you connected the black and red wires together, in that moment a bulb became connected in parallel with the DC output, no? This is what I am saying.... 8) :)
See the attached schema, red circle is the red wire, black circle is the black wire. Is that correct?
I do not mean the bulb was always in parallel with the output, only for the moments you shorted the two wires. :D And very likely whenever you charged up the 470 uF capacitor from the oscillator , the E2 bulb was still in series of course, the capacitor got charge via the bulb, right?
I hope this is okay now? :D ;)
Gyula
Gyula ,
For me, it is clear from the beginning that when I short the two wires E2 is in parallel, and when the capacitor is connected, E2 is connected in series. That was exactly the intention, to be able to visualize the current, when a load was placed at the output.
What is not clear to me is the reason for your question:
Well, the E2 bulb is in series with the 200 uF capacitor in your 'ultimo' schematic. Is that intentional? Or the bulb should be directly across the output?I will not be able to answer you since I did not draw the LTspice diagram.
I used the diagram provided by Itsu for convenience, and for the sake of standardizing results, in order to facilitate the comparison of results with you and Itsu.
Does my answer seem acceptable to you?
Do you want me to change the circuit diagram for any particular configuration?
Or do we continue with this configuration?
It is not relevant for me to change the configuration if you wish, to, so we can move forward.
Thanks
Hi Itsu and Gyula ,
I measure all the capacitors with the LCR DM4070 . Those are the values . Hope could help improve the simulation .
C1-10uf
C2-1uf
C3-10.12nf
C4-20.4nf
C5-20.3nf
C6-97.2nf
C7-3.5nf
Hi Nelson,
Yes, your answer is okay with me. No need to change anything in the circuit diagram, we can continue as it is. And Itsu's drawing corresponds to your drawing, no problem with that.
When I asked that particular question, I simply made a mistake, sorry. :o
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.28, 14:35:20
Hi Nelson,
Yes, your answer is okay with me. No need to change anything in the circuit diagram, we can continue as it is. And Itsu's drawing corresponds to your drawing, no problem with that.
When I asked that particular question, I simply made a mistake, sorry. :o
Gyula
No problem Gyula let's go forward :)
Hi Itsu,
Would like to ask you for doing some measurements on your oscillator, regardless it does not behave exactly in the same way as Nelson's oscillator does.
What I am curious is the base and collector current waveforms shown in the simulation below, how do they compare to the waveforms in the practical oscillator.
What is interesting in the simulation is that during the base current pulse, whenever it is present, there is a negative collector current involved just during the base on time. And when the base current pulse returns to zero, a positive collector current starts which ends earlier than the next base current pulse comes. See first screenshot. I wonder whether this is so in the practical circuit.
Of course I know this would need the new transistor to arrive and also you could find similar L2 L3 coils etc.
Another thing would be to check when does current flow in diodes D1 and D2 ?
As per the simulator, current flow only in the first few microseconds, the initially given 8V in C4 (ic8) discharges directly via D2, and also via the path L1 - D1. And after this transient discharge dies out (in about 90 us see the top part of the 2nd screenshot), the simulator does not show any current flow via the diodes during the 10 ms (or even 50) simulation time, as if these diodes would not be present in the circuit.
In the bottom part of 2nd screenshot I included the current in C4 (yellow trace) for the full 10 ms simulation time. C4 has AC current of course, it is 52.3 mA RMS as per the simulator, and this current must drive the L2 coil too.
How you could measure two currents at the same time: perhaps your current probe could be used for the collector, and because the base current is the negative polarity image of the voltage across resistor R1, the differential measurements method with CH 1 and CH 2 voltage probes across R1 could be ok.
Regarding D1 and D2 currents: just use the current probe for each, separately.
I just noticed Nelson capacitor measurements and the new value but my simulations for this post was done earlier.
Thanks, Gyula
Here below i have copied Nelson his ultimo diagram and made the same traces as for the E1 input and E2 output.
They match very well, the rms value box is for the current through E1 and E2.
Gyula, i will start making those measurements using the parts i have (still no MJE18008 or 13mH CMC)
Itsu
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.04.28, 14:34:41
Hi Itsu and Gyula ,
I measure all the capacitors with the LCR DM4070 . Those are the values . Hope could help improve the simulation .
C1-10uf
C2-1uf
C3-10.12nf
C4-20.4nf
C5-20.3nf
C6-97.2nf
C7-3.5nf
Hi Nelson,
Thanks for these measured values. I just used them and oscilation bogged down just before the 10 ms run time.
By reducing coupling between L2-L3 from 0.7 to 0.69, the simulation goes to about 190 ms (when I run it to 200 ms).
When the amplitude of a waveform start becoming gradually narrower or gradually expanding toward the end time of the simulation, it indicates oscillation stops soon.
Further tweaking with the component values now has become restricted if we adhere to the measured capacitor values.
This is inherent in simulations, only the high end (USD 10,000-15,000+) circuit simulators use transistor model parameters measured in laboratories for particular types. I mention transistor models becasue they are critical when switching or nonlinear operation is involved, most other passive components in such free or cheap simulators behave correctly in most of the cases.
Gyula
Gyula,
below the screenshot of the currents through my MJE13009 collector (white) and base (green).
I kept the same amplitude, but you see the base current is very low compared to the collector.
I can expand on the base current if you want.
The diode currents at startup is somewhat tricky.
EDIT, i used 2 current probes one for the collector current (purple) and one for the base current (green) but with different amplitude settings!! See 2th screenshot
Itsu
Here the currents (green) through D1 and D2 during start of oscillations (as seen by the yellow trace being the "switch" voltage):
Be aware they have different amplitude settings.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Thanks for doing the measurements. It is good the measured base and collector current waveforms look pretty close to the simulated ones. Yes, please try to expand the base current to see it better, at what time it raises above zero where the negative collector current starts.
Regarding the current via the diodes: after the switch-on transients seen on the left, they maintain their periodic nature seen on the right side, is that right?
IF yes, then this is greatly different from the simulated diode currents because the latter ones die out in the simulation after roughly 100 us later the start-up, albeit the oscillator remains working for the rest of the simulation time.
Gyula
Gyula,
yes they maintain their periodic nature seen on the right side.
Be aware i updated the collector/base screenshot post with a 2th screenshot in different amplitudes taken with 2 current probes.
Here again the col / base current, again with 1 probe (AC/DC) but with different amplitude settings
The other current probe used in the before "dual probe measurement" is an AC only probe which misses some resolution
Itsu
Itsu, thank you. The updated base current waveform is still much different from the earlier (i.e. from the single current probe) measured one or from the simulated one. Could you recheck tomorrow so that you use the current probe applied earlier at say the collector to check the base current and vice versa? i.e. replace the two probes with each other.
And maybe the differential voltage measurement across resistor R1 could be rechecked again and also expand it from the earlier 50 mA to say 10mA sensitivity.
Thanks again and good night,
Gyula
Itsu ,
Thanks for the shots, and good night to you and Gyula.
Gyula,
the first screenshot in my post #474 and the one in post #477 are taken with the same procedure using my AC/DC current probe A6302 only.
That first screenhot kept the same amplitude setting to show the amplitude differences between collector and base currents, while the one on post #477 shows the same but with adjusted amplitude setting
for the base, so in principle they should be the same.
(it could be i screwed up on the rms value readout as i need to set it manually based on my current probe controller setting).
The 2th screenshot in post #474 i made using my other, AC only, current probe P6021 for the collector together with the earlier used AC/DC A6302 for the base while triggering on the oscillator voltage signal.
This AC only current probe seems to miss some sensitivity or resolution as there is some difference compared to the white traces made by the AC/DC probe (causing flatlining inbetween).
Measuring the low base current with it gives to worse results due to it being so low in current.
I did not use the differential voltage probe method across R1 yet, but can do that tonight.
Sorry for the confusion.
Itsu
Okay Itsu, thanks, no problems. Will be back later tonight.
Gyula
I made myself a 13mH CMC and put it in the circuit as L2/L3.
L1 was already 2.7mH which is close to the measured 3mH, only the DC resistance is only 1.6 Ohm, so i added a 1 Ohm resistor in series.
For the rest i used caps as measured by Nelson.
I tried a similar bridge as Nelson showed in some video's, but this made little or no change compared to my UF4007 bridge.
Only difference now is the MJE13009 transistor and 7 Ohm bulbs.
Oscillation frequency is 13Khz (lower then the 19Khz from Nelson his circuit) and input current is 58mA which is higher then Nelson (33mA).
Output voltage unloaded is 278V and when shorted it pulls about 13mA (barely glowing the output bulb) with a lowered input current of 31mA.
So the effect showed by Nelson where the output bulb is about twice as bright (60mA??) as the input bulb (24mA) when shorting the output is not there.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPE0eXqxysc&feature=youtu.be
Hopefully the MJE18008 will make the change.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.29, 16:32:53
I made myself a 13mH CMC and put it in the circuit as L2/L3.
L1 was already 2.7mH which is close to the measured 3mH, only the DC resistance is only 1.6 Ohm, so i added a 1 Ohm resistor in series.
For the rest i used caps as measured by Nelson.
I tried a similar bridge as Nelson showed in some video's, but this made little or no change compared to my UF4007 bridge.
Only difference now is the MJE13009 transistor and 7 Ohm bulbs.
Oscillation frequency is 13Khz (lower then the 19Khz from Nelson his circuit) and input current is 58mA which is higher then Nelson (33mA).
Output voltage unloaded is 278V and when shorted it pulls about 13mA (barely glowing the output bulb) with a lowered input current of 31mA.
So the effect showed by Nelson where the output bulb is about twice as bright (60mA??) as the input bulb (24mA) when shorting the output is not there.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPE0eXqxysc&feature=youtu.be
Hopefully the MJE18008 will make the change.
Itsu
Itsu,
I want to thank you for the video, as well as your dedication to this topic.
After watching your last video, I'll notice the way you created the L2-L3 coil.
I could comment after an analysis, very superficial, that with this coil it will never work, with the values of the current components.
If you look closely at the original coil (I send photos attached) in addition to the magnetic wire being much thinner, I would like you to take into account the position as the original L1-L3 coils are positioned.
Both are superimposed, vertically as if they were two flat coils, with the difference of having a core crossing the two coils.
Could that be the reason? ;)
Of course, it is just my opinion, but in any case, I am available to send the original circuit to you if necessary.
Once again, my thanks for your help in this matter.
PS -i forget put link to images :) https://photos.app.goo.gl/WRpwLy9uMLZUCExD9
Hi Nelson,
well, i did use some similar like yours CMC's which are "vertically as if they were two flat coils", but they are all to high in inductance (lowest is 22mH each).
So i tried to "whip up" a CMC that's 13mH, but indeed not "vertically as if they were two flat coils".
On the other hand, i am not sure that would make much difference, as its the inductance / DCR value's that are most important imo, but you could be right that this coil would never work.
So i was looking also to this CMC, see picure below, which is a 13mH CMC like yours, so perhaps i can order one.
Please keep your "working" unit safe for now as the main component (MJE18008) is still missing here.
Regards Itsu
I redid the collector / base current measurements in this new circuit, see screenshot 1.
I used the P6021 current probe (AC) for the collector current (purple)
I used the differential voltage probe method for the base current (red) and
i used the A6302 current probe (AC/DC) also for the base current (green).
I found out that the magnetic top L1 has much influence on the signal of the A6302 probe, so i had to extend the loop to get the probe out of the way of this L1, so base current is different from yesteday,
but the differential probe methode and the A6302 probe sigs now match.
We loose some resolution on the differential probe methode due to the low signals and math.
2th screenshot is the same, but collector (purple) and base (green) currents put on same line.
Itsu
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.04.27, 22:26:55
...
I left the last shots for today . My question is as follows:
The current in E2 (Follow the scheme) has a negative peak of 168.39mA at 0,05ms with a peak voltage of 8.0092V at N004 giving a 1.3307W .
The current in input 9.8mA at V1 and 24V at V1, giving a 224.49mW of power consumed .
My question is as follows:
Why does LTspice show a lower consumption value in V1 at the entrance, compared to the value displayed at the exit at E2, even if it is in a small fraction of time?
Is LTspice supposed to present this type of values, being a reference software in electronic simulation?
...
Hi Nelson,
I return to your questions you asked in connection with the ultimo-funcional.asc circuit file and sreenshot
Math of input Vs Output.png and I included your shot below from your above post for reference only.
I repeated the simulation (note that I also used r=2 Ohm for L1 as you did back then) and plotted the same input and output currents and power levels you did, see 2nd attachment.
I drew a vertical yellow line at 35.5 us where the highest output power (1.3 W, red curve) manifested and where the current via E2 bulb was the highest too (-165.5 mA, dark blue curve). Here the simulator gave 210 mW (light blue curve) input power, input current taken from 24V voltage source was 8.66 mA (green curve) at the moment of 35.5 us.
These values are very close to your values, the small differences should have come from the reading accuracy of the moving cursor over the curves i.e. our own hand accuracy.
And you considered the time at 0.05 ms i.e. at 50 us but in your plot the maximum peak current in E2 is at less than 40 us time as I see it. Well this difference is no problem for me, and this does not make your questions invalid in any way.
It is also ok that you chose time range between 20 us and 260 us to display the input and output currents and power levels to illustrate your questions (I refer to your plot file again:
Math of input Vs Output.png).
Now on your 1st question: LTspice showed lower input power taken from V1 voltage source than the output power in E2 bulb was
because at that particular moment (at your 50 us or at my 35.5 us) those peak power levels must have been ruling in the simulated circuit. On your 2nd question: LTspice and other Spice based circuit simulators are supposed to present correct results provided the component models in them are close to the electrical parameters of the real world components, this depends also on the software user what he or she enters.
To further answer your 1st question, we need to
evaluate the total input power the circuit received between time range from 0 to 20 us. Notice that there is an initial condition: 8V is pumped out from C4 which kicks the oscillator in and let me show you what power and current levels are present in the same circuit within the 0 to 20 us time duration, see 3rd attachment.
The red curve shows L1 coil current, the pink curve shows voltage across L1 coil, the yellow curve shows the instanteneous peak power in L1 and the green curve shows the DC input current taken from V1 voltage source. Note that the input current is very close to zero mA during the full 20 us time duration hence the currents and power levels shown by the curves come mainly from the 8V initial voltage established in C4 by the software.
Notice that this circuit stops in the simulator at around 197.7 ms if run as long as say 200 ms. I attached the current and power level curves for the time range between 196 and 200 ms. The output power (red curve) in E2 bulb converges from
3.6 mW average power to zero, while the input power converges from
-198 mW average power to also zero, both levels are for the 196 to 200 ms time range (the power levels are received by Ctrl + left mouse clicks of course).
General notice if I may: in circuits that include capacitors and coils that oscillate at a certain (mostly at resonant) frequency, the instanteneous peak power levels may exceed the instanteneous peak input power levels taken from a voltage or current source.
Maybe I answered your 2 questions, if not please ask.
Gyula
Hi Itsu,
Many thanks for doing the measurements. Will digest and comment them tomorrow.
Greetings
Gyula
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.29, 19:30:37
Hi Nelson,
well, i did use some similar like yours CMC's which are "vertically as if they were two flat coils", but they are all to high in inductance (lowest is 22mH each).
So i tried to "whip up" a CMC that's 13mH, but indeed not "vertically as if they were two flat coils".
On the other hand, i am not sure that would make much difference, as its the inductance / DCR value's that are most important imo, but you could be right that this coil would never work.
So i was looking also to this CMC, see picure below, which is a 13mH CMC like yours, so perhaps i can order one.
Please keep your "working" unit safe for now as the main component (MJE18008) is still missing here.
Regards Itsu
Itsu ,
I honestly think that the configuration of the coil, such as the thickness of the wire, and the position of the orientation of the coils will make difference in the operation of oscillator . In my perspective even the gap between turns, completely changes the coil's inductance. I think the coupling between the L2 and L3 is much different from original coil configuration .
I will keep this unit free , no problem , but I wanted you to understand, that I am 100% available and ready to send you the original circuit .
About the SMC choke you attach , seems to have some type of gap in the middle of winded coils ?? I'm not sure . This coil was removed from old Sony TV that i savaged some components , i really don't know their reference rssssssss . it is a pity .... Let's see how it goes when you have MJE10008;).
Thanks
Itsu, if I see Nelson's choke transformer correctly in his photos, it consists of a C and I core pieces, and the I core on which the bobbin is with the coils closes magnetically the C core. There is usually a small air gap left between the two core pieces.
Here are similar constructions:
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS21V-080136/399-10682-ND/4290748 (https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS21V-080136/399-10682-ND/4290748)
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS30V-R200132/399-10600-ND/4290666 (https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS30V-R200132/399-10600-ND/4290666)
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SSR10HS-10135/399-19019-ND/9664316 (https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SSR10HS-10135/399-19019-ND/9664316)
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SSR10VS-10135/399-19041-ND/9664338 (https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SSR10VS-10135/399-19041-ND/9664338)
Perhaps Nelson wish to comment these.
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.29, 20:29:50
Hi Nelson,
I return to your questions you asked in connection with the ultimo-funcional.asc circuit file and sreenshot Math of input Vs Output.png and I included your shot below from your above post for reference only.
I repeated the simulation (note that I also used r=2 Ohm for L1 as you did back then) and plotted the same input and output currents and power levels you did, see 2nd attachment.
I drew a vertical yellow line at 35.5 us where the highest output power (1.3 W, red curve) manifested and where the current via E2 bulb was the highest too (-165.5 mA, dark blue curve). Here the simulator gave 210 mW (light blue curve) input power, input current taken from 24V voltage source was 8.66 mA (green curve) at the moment of 35.5 us.
These values are very close to your values, the small differences should have come from the reading accuracy of the moving cursor over the curves i.e. our own hand accuracy.
And you considered the time at 0.05 ms i.e. at 50 us but in your plot the maximum peak current in E2 is at less than 40 us time as I see it. Well this difference is no problem for me, and this does not make your questions invalid in any way.
It is also ok that you chose time range between 20 us and 260 us to display the input and output currents and power levels to illustrate your questions (I refer to your plot file again: Math of input Vs Output.png).
Now on your 1st question: LTspice showed lower input power taken from V1 voltage source than the output power in E2 bulb was because at that particular moment (at your 50 us or at my 35.5 us) those peak power levels must have been ruling in the simulated circuit.
On your 2nd question: LTspice and other Spice based circuit simulators are supposed to present correct results provided the component models in them are close to the electrical parameters of the real world components, this depends also on the software user what he or she enters.
To further answer your 1st question, we need to evaluate the total input power the circuit received between time range from 0 to 20 us. Notice that there is an initial condition: 8V is pumped out from C4 which kicks the oscillator in and let me show you what power and current levels are present in the same circuit within the 0 to 20 us time duration, see 3rd attachment.
The red curve shows L1 coil current, the pink curve shows voltage across L1 coil, the yellow curve shows the instanteneous peak power in L1 and the green curve shows the DC input current taken from V1 voltage source. Note that the input current is very close to zero mA during the full 20 us time duration hence the currents and power levels shown by the curves come mainly from the 8V initial voltage established in C4 by the software.
Notice that this circuit stops in the simulator at around 197.7 ms if run as long as say 200 ms. I attached the current and power level curves for the time range between 196 and 200 ms. The output power (red curve) in E2 bulb converges from 3.6 mW average power to zero, while the input power converges from -198 mW average power to also zero, both levels are for the 196 to 200 ms time range (the power levels are received by Ctrl + left mouse clicks of course).
General notice if I may: in circuits that include capacitors and coils that oscillate at a certain (mostly at resonant) frequency, the instanteneous peak power levels may exceed the instanteneous peak input power levels taken from a voltage or current source.
Maybe I answered your 2 questions, if not please ask.
Gyula
Gyula ,
Many thanks by your answer and analyze to my questions .
My questions were asked because I am a beginner at LTspice, and I am not familiar with circuit simulations and theory, I would say that I am more of a bench person, if I make myself understood.
However, without taking value from the LTspice tool, and as I am an open-minded person, receptive to new working methods, I wanted to take the opportunity to get started.
I will read your answers carefully, and do a personal analysis on Ltspice as well, However, it would not be honest on my part, to confess, that I think there will always be profound differences between a simulation and real life, even more when we walk on paths, still little explored.
Regarding your last point :
General notice if I may: in circuits that include capacitors and coils that oscillate at a certain (mostly at resonant) frequency, the instantaneous peak power levels may exceed the instantaneous peak input power levels taken from a voltage or current source. My question is as follows:
Where did this apparent current and voltage gain come from? Even if it is at peak level at nS or mS time ? :) I really appreciate your answers, as well as Itsu's. My thanks
Have a good night
PS- You may not have noticed, but in the post Reply #460 i publish shots with the resistance value already corrected to 2.6 ohms in L1 .
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.04.29, 21:07:58
....
PS- You may not have noticed, but in the post Reply #460 i publish shots with the resistance value already corrected to 2.6 ohms in L1 .
Yes Nelson, I noticed and knew it. The reason I used the 2 Ohm for L1 was to have very close current and power levels for your quoted simulation which also used 2 Ohm due to the use of comma instead of the decimal dot.
Will continue tomorrow, have a good night too.
Gyula
Finally i got my MJE18008g transistors.
I went back to the 22mH CMC for L2/L3 and adjusted pot R3 to have 31mA input current unloaded (96 Ohm).
Unloaded output is about 250V, but when shorting it we drop input current to 21mA, but the output current is around 10mA and not able to light up the output bulb.
Oscillation frequency unloaded is 15.7Khz, loaded 12Khz.
Collector (purple) and base (green) currents as shown below, 1st screenshot unloaded, 2th loaded.
So still no effect noted as shown by Nelson (brighter output bulb then input bulb when shortend).
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71h3J5FkBVY&feature=youtu.be
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.29, 19:30:37
On the other hand, i am not sure that would make much difference, as its the inductance / DCR value's that are most important imo,
Intra and Interwinding capacitance can matter for the Electronic Engineering aspect of the circuit (the thing the LTspice is concerned with).
IMO the placement of the windings, their spacing and shape, as well as the core type and shape do not matter from EE's point of view.
However from the physics point of view, they can matter very much because of field geometry and core material's effects.
Hmmmm, thanks, so like the CMC used in Nelson his circuit can create things like f.i. NMR / NAR which influences
his circuit to show the effect which won't be there when there is no NMR / NAR (my CMC or LTspice).
Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2020.04.30, 15:41:49
Intra and Interwinding capacitance can matter for the Electronic Engineering aspect of the circuit (the thing the LTspice is concerned with).
IMO the placement of the windings, their spacing and shape, as well as the core type and shape do not matter from EE's point of view.
However from the physics point of view, they can matter very much because of field geometry and core material's effects.
Good day All:
Following and concurring with Verpies train of thought above, I will also add that the composition of physical build, ie; spaceing(mentioned above) and the number of parallel strands that form a winding (think litz) and the method used to interweave those strands (ie; braided/intertwined/twisted vs parallel) also can have profound effects on *k* factor, bandwidth, T_rise, T_fall, etc.
take care, peace
lost_bo
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.30, 15:21:18
Finally i got my MJE18008g transistors.
I went back to the 22mH CMC for L2/L3 and adjusted pot R3 to have 31mA input current unloaded (96 Ohm).
Unloaded output is about 250V, but when shorting it we drop input current to 21mA, but the output current is around 10mA and not able to light up the output bulb.
Oscillation frequency unloaded is 15.7Khz, loaded 12Khz.
Collector (purple) and base (green) currents as shown below, 1st screenshot unloaded, 2th loaded.
So still no effect noted as shown by Nelson (brighter output bulb then input bulb when shortend).
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71h3J5FkBVY&feature=youtu.be
Regards Itsu
Itsu ,
Thank you very much for your video again.
I am sorry that the MJE18008g transistor has not given better results.
Perhaps the choice of the coil may be making a difference, because even in the current one, it seems to me that there are clear differences.
I have some identical ones that you are using, and if you notice there is a gap in each winding L2-L3, which is seen from the bottom shows a cross winding in each part of the coil, as well as the magnetic wire thickness.
It is the only reason that occurs to me now. I am sure that with patience and perseverance, we will be able to reach the main objective of reproducing the original circuit.
My thanks for making your time available on this topic.
Gyula ,
about :
Note that the input current is very close to zero mA during the full 20 us time duration hence the currents and power levels shown by the curves come mainly from the 8V initial voltage established in C4 by the software.
Respectfully, I will have to disagree with that statement.Let's consider that C4 in its initial state has no voltage present.
Instead, we will replace that state in C4 by zero volts and use a pushbutton, just like on the original circuit.
From this moment on, we would stop considering any external input.
We will consider a pulse of only 1ms, as if the push-butt is pressed.
From that moment on, any input will always be provided by V1 our source in circuit. Do we agree?
Being the time chosen to activate the push button, in 1ms, simulating the transient test, we should not check any activity before that time, only after this same 1ms can we hypothetically begin the analysis.
I will leave all samples for LTspice analysis,
so you can comment on why I disagree with the opinion previously given.
I want to add that the main reason for insisting on this point is that I do not believe in the reliability of LTspice at all, for use in very particular cases.
Being a novice, in Ltspice I would be grateful that yours or someone more experienced could take my doubts.
Thank you one more time .
Hi Itsu,
I have been curious on the collector and base current waveforms in a working oscillator like this and I also wished to compare them to the simulated waveforms. The collector current waveforms more or less comparable but the base current waveforms are not so much and of course we have to rely on the measured waveforms. And what rather differs in the simulation is the currents through D1 and D2 diodes you measure in your circuit.
Thanks you very much again for your kind efforts. It is very good you are dedicated and I will be available further on if I can be of any help. It is unfortunate that the new transistor has not produced closer results to that of Nelson's. Do you think one of the the choke coils I gave link to Digikey above could work better ?
Gyula
Gyula, Nelson,
yes, it is kind of disappointing, but not unexpected.
I did some further tests this evening, but none showed any more then about 10mA output current (so no light in the output bulb).
I can mimic the input current going from 30mA unloaded to 21mA when shorting the output, but that is all.
So it could be the CMC (L2/L3) that is contributing something special to the circuit, so yes i could give those Digikey CMC's a go and will order some, but probably its that special one Nelson has that is needed ;)
Anyway, not done with testing yet, tomorrow is another day.
If you want some more scope shots taken please indicate wich one.
Regards itsu
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.04.30, 17:39:41
Gyula ,
about :
Note that the input current is very close to zero mA during the full 20 us time duration hence the currents and power levels shown by the curves come mainly from the 8V initial voltage established in C4 by the software.
Respectfully, I will have to disagree with that statement.Let's consider that C4 in its initial state has no voltage present.
Instead, we will replace that state in C4 by zero volts and use a pushbutton, just like on the original circuit.
From this moment on, we would stop considering any external input.
We will consider a pulse of only 1ms, as if the push-butt is pressed.
From that moment on, any input will always be provided by V1 our source in circuit. Do we agree?
Being the time chosen to activate the push button, in 1ms, simulating the transient test, we should not check any activity before that time, only after this same 1ms can we hypothetically begin the analysis.
I will leave all samples for LTspice analysis,
so you can comment on why I disagree with the opinion previously given.
I want to add that the main reason for insisting on this point is that I do not believe in the reliability of LTspice at all, for use in very particular cases.
Being a novice, in Ltspice I would be grateful that yours or someone more experienced could take my doubts.
Thank you one more time .
Hi Nelson,
I am pleased you managed to use the SW switch in the simulator and the oscillator runs without any pre-charged C4, like the initial condition of 5 to 8V established earlier.
However, what I wrote on the input power for the first 20 us simulation time and then from the 20 us to 260 us etc I meant for that particular simulation and
I did not mean it generally. The close to zero input current taken from V1 was the result of a not yet oscillating circuit in the first 20 us, and from around 20 us and onwards the input current started to increase form 3-4 mA towards the 10 to 15 mA range and finally it stopped at the 198 - 200 ms or so simulation time duration.
Now that the SW switch can mimic the push button you use on the real circuit may open up further test possibilities in the simulator. Of course we cannot fully trust in simulators, I agree and we have to interpret and evaluate simulation results with caution. Will do so too with this new SW switch variaton.
Gyula
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.04.29, 21:07:58
....
Regarding your last point :
General notice if I may: in circuits that include capacitors and coils that oscillate at a certain (mostly at resonant) frequency, the instantaneous peak power levels may exceed the instantaneous peak input power levels taken from a voltage or current source.
My question is as follows:
Where did this apparent current and voltage gain come from? Even if it is at peak level at nS or mS time ? :) I really appreciate your answers, as well as Itsu's. My thanks
...
Hi Nelson,
The instanteneous currents and voltages via or across capacitors and coils cannot really be termed as "gain" because they come from normal operation of such reactive components.
Consider a 10 mH coil with 2 Ohm DC resistance. Suppose we connect a 22 nF capacitor in series with it and at their resonant frequency, 10.73 kHz we drive this series LC circuit from a function generator that has only 0.1 Ohm internal resistance and the output voltage is set to say 1 V.
So the current flowing in this circuit at resonance will be I = 1 V / 2.1 Ohm = 0.476 A.
Now consider this current establishes a magnetic field in this coil, the stored energy in this field would be E = 0.01 H x 0.476 A x 0.476 A / 2 = 0.00113288 J i.e. 1.13288 mJ.
When the field changes to zero as per the AC input current dictates, the energy in the diminishing field drives a charging current into the 22 nF capacitor. Now we can calculate the voltage this capacitor will be charged up to.
Assuming a nearly lossless capacitor, quasi all the 1.13288 mJ energy would manifest as stored voltage and we can reverse calculate this voltage level: 0.00113288 J = 22 nF x V x V / 2. This gives V = 320.9 V, this will manifest across the 22 nF capacitor periodically at particular moments.
And also this 320.9 V will appear across the coil but just in opposite phase with respect to the capacitor voltage because the discharging capacitor current will build up the magnetic field in the coil and of course the coil will fight against the increase of this current by developing an increasing counter voltage. Normal induction: a changing coil current builds up a changing magnetic field and this latter induces voltage across the coil.
Now we can also consider the 0.476 A through the coil causes a voltage drop across the wire resistance this calculates as
2 Ohm x 0.476 A = 0.952 V and yet there is also the 320.9 V across the same coil but not across the 2 Ohm DC resistance but across the coil inductive reactance (the coil is a series RL circuit in this respect).
The inductive reactance is 674.18 Ohm for this coil at 10.73 kHz and the Q quality factor is 674.18 Ohm / 2 Ohm = 337. And this same 337 is given by the ratio of the voltage across the 2 Ohm to the voltage across the coil i.e. 320.9V / 0.952V = 337.
Now what could be said is that the coil in a series resonant LC circuit keeps maintaning a voltage across itself which is proportional to the voltage drop across the coil wire resistance (neglecting any other series resistance in the circuit).
And the proportionality constant is the Q quality factor, the ratio of the coil inductive reactance to its resistance.
Regarding a parallel LC circuit at resonance, the input current to the circuit increases Q times inside the LC circuit i.e. if we drive an LC circuit with 10 mA current at the resonant frequency, then inside the LC circuit the current will be 1 A if the loaded Q of this resonant LC circuit would be 100.
Hopefully these 'ramblings' answer your above question.
Good night,
Gyula
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.30, 20:41:30
Gyula, Nelson,
yes, it is kind of disappointing, but not unexpected.
I did some further tests this evening, but none showed any more then about 10mA output current (so no light in the output bulb).
I can mimic the input current going from 30mA unloaded to 21mA when shorting the output, but that is all.
So it could be the CMC (L2/L3) that is contributing something special to the circuit, so yes i could give those Digikey CMC's a go and will order some, but probably its that special one Nelson has that is needed ;)
Anyway, not done with testing yet, tomorrow is another day.
If you want some more scope shots taken please indicate wich one.
Regards itsu
Hi Itsu ,
I tried to take some pictures to try to illustrate some of the differences that actually seem to exist between the coil of the circuit and the one you use.
I think that these Digikey CMC's coils do not correspond to the circuit coil, they are identical to the ones you used, and the ones I put in the attached photos.
Will this be with a 1: 1 transformer? Who knows ?? ☺ The coil wire in my circuit seems to be very thin compared to the used cmc coils that normally use 0.3 mm thick magnetic wire. I would say it is 0.1 mm, in addition it is covered with wax.
I don't know how I can help with this coil theme ☹ Maybe someone here on the forum, who in the past has worked with Sony TV repair? Maybe it could help with a tip!
Thanks Itsu
Quote from: gyula on 2020.04.30, 22:11:26
Hi Nelson,
The instanteneous currents and voltages via or across capacitors and coils cannot really be termed as "gain" because they come from normal operation of such reactive components.
Consider a 10 mH coil with 2 Ohm DC resistance. Suppose we connect a 22 nF capacitor in series with it and at their resonant frequency, 10.73 kHz we drive this series LC circuit from a function generator that has only 0.1 Ohm internal resistance and the output voltage is set to say 1 V.
So the current flowing in this circuit at resonance will be I = 1 V / 2.1 Ohm = 0.476 A.
Now consider this current establishes a magnetic field in this coil, the stored energy in this field would be E = 0.01 H x 0.476 A x 0.476 A / 2 = 0.00113288 J i.e. 1.13288 mJ.
When the field changes to zero as per the AC input current dictates, the energy in the diminishing field drives a charging current into the 22 nF capacitor. Now we can calculate the voltage this capacitor will be charged up to.
Assuming a nearly lossless capacitor, quasi all the 1.13288 mJ energy would manifest as stored voltage and we can reverse calculate this voltage level: 0.00113288 J = 22 nF x V x V / 2. This gives V = 320.9 V, this will manifest across the 22 nF capacitor periodically at particular moments.
And also this 320.9 V will appear across the coil but just in opposite phase with respect to the capacitor voltage because the discharging capacitor current will build up the magnetic field in the coil and of course the coil will fight against the increase of this current by developing an increasing counter voltage. Normal induction: a changing coil current builds up a changing magnetic field and this latter induces voltage across the coil.
Now we can also consider the 0.476 A through the coil causes a voltage drop across the wire resistance this calculates as
2 Ohm x 0.476 A = 0.952 V and yet there is also the 320.9 V across the same coil but not across the 2 Ohm DC resistance but across the coil inductive reactance (the coil is a series RL circuit in this respect).
The inductive reactance is 674.18 Ohm for this coil at 10.73 kHz and the Q quality factor is 674.18 Ohm / 2 Ohm = 337. And this same 337 is given by the ratio of the voltage across the 2 Ohm to the voltage across the coil i.e. 320.9V / 0.952V = 337.
Now what could be said is that the coil in a series resonant LC circuit keeps maintaning a voltage across itself which is proportional to the voltage drop across the coil wire resistance (neglecting any other series resistance in the circuit).
And the proportionality constant is the Q quality factor, the ratio of the coil inductive reactance to its resistance.
Regarding a parallel LC circuit at resonance, the input current to the circuit increases Q times inside the LC circuit i.e. if we drive an LC circuit with 10 mA current at the resonant frequency, then inside the LC circuit the current will be 1 A if the loaded Q of this resonant LC circuit would be 100.
Hopefully these 'ramblings' answer your above question.
Good night,
Gyula
Gyula thanks for your elaborate explanation about the operation of resonant circuits in series and in parallel, although it is not unknown to me, but I liked the way you explained the theme itself; It was very clear and succinct.
I could add that series resonant circuit provides
voltage magnification and parallel resonant circuit provides
current magnification.
However, gains in currents and voltages in resonant circuits are not synonymous with producing real work , given their reactive nature. At least that's what the books say . :)
When I ask you, from where apparent current and voltage gain come from, I was referring to the LTSpice circuit simulation, which was the topic we were discussing, given the shots presented, because in that case LTspice's power calculation apparently presented a gain of instantaneous peak power in W and that is what puzzled me, but given that we already agreed in your last post, that we cannot fully trust in simulators I was completely clarified.
Thanks again for your response and contribution.
Good night Gyula
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.04.30, 22:34:48
Hi Itsu ,
I tried to take some pictures to try to illustrate some of the differences that actually seem to exist between the coil of the circuit and the one you use.
I think that these Digikey CMC's coils do not correspond to the circuit coil, they are identical to the ones you used, and the ones I put in the attached photos.
Will this be with a 1: 1 transformer? Who knows ?? ☺ The coil wire in my circuit seems to be very thin compared to the used cmc coils that normally use 0.3 mm thick magnetic wire. I would say it is 0.1 mm, in addition it is covered with wax.
I don't know how I can help with this coil theme ☹ Maybe someone here on the forum, who in the past has worked with Sony TV repair? Maybe it could help with a tip!
Thanks Itsu
Nelson,
thanks for the pictures, it is a special one, i agree.
I will be looking for such a CMC, up till now my google searches did not yield a match.
Itsu
Hi Nelson,
Sony components were given individual Part Numbers if I recall correctly. Your transformer has its Part Number stamped on its top but due to wear and ageing, the numbers may not be fully identified any more. Maybe with a magnifying glass it could be made out?
It should have these number groups: 1-4XX-XXX-11
in the bottom line the 8142 (or perhaps the last digit is 8 and not 2), the 81 may mean the year 1981 and the 42 (or 48) may mean the week number it was manufactured in 1981.
Another approach would be to identify the chassis board, type or model number, from which this transformer was scavenged. If such chassis or circuit board is known, then there is a chance to get a service manual on it which includes the needed Part number.
But even if the correct Part number is known, such an old component (at least 35-39 years old or more) would be very hard to find if at all. There is little chance any Sony Spare Parts supplier stocks such old components any more.
There are several Sony Spare Parts suppliers coming up with google search but either the Sony model number or Sony component part number is needed to know in advance.
Ebay has some Sony chokes but none of them is even close to this one. here is such, just for illustration:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/193436933120 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/193436933120)
In the previous page I also included some Digikey CMC offers that have the C and I cores and 'similar' windings. I suppose they are not even close to the Sony part you have?
Here are some more:
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS11VL-R08125/399-10555-ND/4290574 (https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS11VL-R08125/399-10555-ND/4290574)
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS26V-150121/399-10583-ND/4290602 (https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS26V-150121/399-10583-ND/4290602)
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS11H-07120-CH/399-10741-ND/4290807 (https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS11H-07120-CH/399-10741-ND/4290807)
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.05.01, 10:56:47
Hi Nelson,
Sony components were given individual Part Numbers if I recall correctly. Your transformer has its Part Number stamped on its top but due to wear and ageing, the numbers may not be fully identified any more. Maybe with a magnifying glass it could be made out?
It should have these number groups: 1-4XX-XXX-11
in the bottom line the 8142 (or perhaps the last digit is 8 and not 2), the 81 may mean the year 1981 and the 42 (or 48) may mean the week number it was manufactured in 1981.
Another approach would be to identify the chassis board, type or model number, from which this transformer was scavenged. If such chassis or circuit board is known, then there is a chance to get a service manual on it which includes the needed Part number.
But even if the correct Part number is known, such an old component (at least 35-39 years old or more) would be very hard to find if at all. There is little chance any Sony Spare Parts supplier stocks such old components any more.
There are several Sony Spare Parts suppliers coming up with google search but either the Sony model number or Sony component part number is needed to know in advance.
Ebay has some Sony chokes but none of them is even close to this one. here is such, just for illustration:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/193436933120 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/193436933120)
In the previous page I also included some Digikey CMC offers that have the C and I cores and 'similar' windings. I suppose they are not even close to the Sony part you have?
Here are some more:
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS11VL-R08125/399-10555-ND/4290574 (https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS11VL-R08125/399-10555-ND/4290574)
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS26V-150121/399-10583-ND/4290602 (https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS26V-150121/399-10583-ND/4290602)
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS11H-07120-CH/399-10741-ND/4290807 (https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kemet/SS11H-07120-CH/399-10741-ND/4290807)
Gyula
Hi Gyula , yes is almost impossible identify the coil , but i have news about that coil. i will publish more info very soon . I'm organize some things but later I will update with data .
See you later ;)
All,
I see comments regarding accuracy simulators in general and in particular LtSpice which is currently being used here for analysis. LtSpice is a very powerful simulator and when setup properly, is extremely accurate. Keep in mind that a simulation is no more accurate than the models used and sometimes the circuits themselves. If a simulation does not match a bench circuit say within 5% or so, the sim models are usually to blame. There is one exception to this and that is if there is external input to the bench circuit from electrostatic, electromagnetic, or aetheric means that is not accounted for in the simulation.
Even non-linear components can be correctly simulated although the degree of difficulty in modeling becomes significantly greater. Many times we assume a transformer or coil is linear when in fact it not and this in itself can account for significant errors.
regards,
Pm
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.01, 12:43:56
Hi Gyula , yes is almost impossible identify the coil , but i have news about that coil. i will publish more info very soon . I'm organize some things but later I will update with data .
See you later ;)
The special or unique CMC that you've shown can be profiled in the following manner so it can be replicated or simulated by others with reasonable accuracy.
First, measure the inductance of each winding which in this case they will be close to the same. This can be done at a low level with an inductance meter or with a high level from a switching circuit that will allow one to measure L = E*dt/di . This last measurement will also allow one to check to see if the core is not saturating at the required operating mmf or coil current.
Next, take inductance measurements of the two coils connected in series aiding L+ and series bucking L-. The L- or bucking measurement will be lower than the L+ or aiding. Then using the formula M = ((L+)-(L-))/4 we now have the mutual inductance.
Using the mutual inductance we can now calculate the k or coupling factor with k = M/(Lp*Ls)^.5 but since Lp = Ls we can use k = M/Lp .
With this info, the transformer can now be built or simulated with the additional info on dc resistance. There will a slight inter-turn capacitance and very little inter-winding capacitance due to the split bobbin design so both can be ignored without much error..
As a check, we can calculate the leakage inductance with Lpleak = (1-k)*Lp and the primary inductance with the secondary shorted with Lpss = (1-K^2)*Lp .
I might add that most CMCs have a slight gap in the ferrite cores to help prevent saturation at higher current levels.
Regards,
Pm
Thanks PM,
i have taken one of my CMC's and measured:
Lp = 19mH
Ls = 19mH
L+ = 74mH
L- = 190uH
thus:
M = 73.81/4 = 18.45
K = 18.45/19 = 0.97
Lpleak = 0.57mH
Lpss = 1.1mH (measuring Lp with Ls shorted gives 190uH, so this does not match the calculated value).
Itsu
After some investigation what I was able to ascertain, it is apparently a type of isolation transformer . Although the references are not the same, but I think it must be similar.
I leave a summary of the information I was able to collect. In the photos, some apparently identical coils are highlighted.
The insulating converter transformer PIT is equipped with an EE-type core comprising two E-type cores CR1, CR2 of ferrite material which are assembled so that the magnetic legs thereof are confronted to each other, and the primary winding N1 and the secondary winding N2 are wound around the center magnetic leg of the EE-type core while they are separated from each other by using a dividing bobbin B. Further, the center magnetic leg is designed to have a gap G therein, thereby achieving loose coupling based on a required coupling coefficient.
The gap G can be formed by making the center magnetic leg of each of the E-type cores CR1, CR2 shorter than the two outer magnetic legs thereof. Further, the coupling coefficient k is set to about 0.7 to 0.8 so that loose coupling can be attained, and thus it is harder to achieve the saturation state.
Transformer PIT can be implemented in any combination case where the polarities of the primary winding N1 and the secondary winding N2 are in additive polarity relationship or subtractive polarity relationship and the winding directions thereof are the same (coaxial) or opposite to each other.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.01, 15:40:15
Thanks PM,
i have taken one of my CMC's and measured:
Lp = 19mH
Ls = 19mH
L+ = 74mH
L- = 190uH
thus:
M = 73.81/4 = 18.45
K = 18.45/19 = 0.97
Lpleak = 0.57mH
Lpss = 1.1mH (measuring Lp with Ls shorted gives 190uH, so this does not match the calculated value).
Itsu
Itsu,
None of these calculations take into account the dc resistance of the windings and this is mostly affect the calculations for Lpleak and and particularly Lpss. The best measurement method for these is to use resonance to arrive at the values.
For example and you probably already know this, Lpleak can be determined by placing a known C across the secondary, measure the resonance on the primary and calculate Lpleak from the results.
Likewise Lpss can be determined by placing a known C in series with the primary with the secondary shorted, measure the resonance of the primary and calculate Lpss from the results.
Regards,
Pm
Edit: Sometime I would like to modify the equations to include the winding resistances!
Quote from: partzman on 2020.05.01, 13:06:36
All,
I see comments regarding accuracy simulators in general and in particular LtSpice which is currently being used here for analysis. LtSpice is a very powerful simulator and when setup properly, is extremely accurate. Keep in mind that a simulation is no more accurate than the models used and sometimes the circuits themselves. If a simulation does not match a bench circuit say within 5% or so, the sim models are usually to blame. There is one exception to this and that is if there is external input to the bench circuit from electrostatic, electromagnetic, or aetheric means that is not accounted for in the simulation.
Even non-linear components can be correctly simulated although the degree of difficulty in modeling becomes significantly greater. Many times we assume a transformer or coil is linear when in fact it not and this in itself can account for significant errors.
regards,
Pm
Hi Partzman ,
Thanks for your opinion, as I said I am not a regular user of LTspice, having started it a few days ago to try follow the simulations made by Itsu and Gyula., in the context of this circuit that we are trying to understand.
I would like to take the liberty of asking you to do your simulation and interpretation based on the model I made available, at
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=34859.
Given that you are a regular user, perhaps you can make some productive considerations regarding some values obtained during the transient simulation.
Grateful for your opinion thank you
Quote from: partzman on 2020.05.01, 13:31:45
The special or unique CMC that you've shown can be profiled in the following manner so it can be replicated or simulated by others with reasonable accuracy.
First, measure the inductance of each winding which in this case they will be close to the same. This can be done at a low level with an inductance meter or with a high level from a switching circuit that will allow one to measure L = E*dt/di . This last measurement will also allow one to check to see if the core is not saturating at the required operating mmf or coil current.
Next, take inductance measurements of the two coils connected in series aiding L+ and series bucking L-. The L- or bucking measurement will be lower than the L+ or aiding. Then using the formula M = ((L+)-(L-))/4 we now have the mutual inductance.
Using the mutual inductance we can now calculate the k or coupling factor with k = M/(Lp*Ls)^.5 but since Lp = Ls we can use k = M/Lp .
With this info, the transformer can now be built or simulated with the additional info on dc resistance. There will a slight inter-turn capacitance and very little inter-winding capacitance due to the split bobbin design so both can be ignored without much error..
As a check, we can calculate the leakage inductance with Lpleak = (1-k)*Lp and the primary inductance with the secondary shorted with Lpss = (1-K^2)*Lp .
I might add that most CMCs have a slight gap in the ferrite cores to help prevent saturation at higher current levels.
Regards,
Pm
Hi Partzman,
Thanks for the information about the calculation, but for the moment all the data I could provide has already provided some posts ago :
Inductance of each coil and its resistance. I think it will be a good starting point, given that initially, I only provided ohmic resistance for each coil.
Given the lack of equipment, I won't be able to do the test you mentioned,
I will have to borrow the LCR measurement instrument again from a friend so that I can do it.
But good tip! Thanks
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.01, 17:05:27
Hi Partzman ,
Thanks for your opinion, as I said I am not a regular user of LTspice, having started it a few days ago to try follow the simulations made by Itsu and Gyula., in the context of this circuit that we are trying to understand.
I would like to take the liberty of asking you to do your simulation and interpretation based on the model I made available, at
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=34859.
Given that you are a regular user, perhaps you can make some productive considerations regarding some values obtained during the transient simulation.
Grateful for your opinion thank you
Hi Nelson,
does your ultimo-functional2.asc runs continuously?
When running here, it stops around 400ms.
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2020.05.01, 13:06:36
I see comments regarding accuracy simulators in general and in particular LtSpice which is currently being used here for analysis. LtSpice is a very powerful simulator and when setup properly, is extremely accurate.
Especially in the electronic domain.
Quote from: partzman on 2020.05.01, 13:06:36
If a simulation does not match a bench circuit say within 5% or so, the sim models are usually to blame. There is one exception to this and that is if there is external input to the bench circuit from electrostatic, electromagnetic, or aetheric means that is not accounted for in the simulation.
I would even generalize it further and say that LTspice is not a general physics simulator.
For example make an LC tank circuit with a coil wound on an EE core (or pot core) but bind the two halves of the core loosely so they can clap mechanically.
When the frequency of the current in the LC tank approaches the mechanical resonance of the core halves, then the current/voltage waveforms measured by the scope will be very different than the waveforms simulated by the electronic simulator.
Quote from: partzman on 2020.05.01, 13:06:36
Even non-linear components can be correctly simulated although the degree of difficulty in modeling becomes significantly greater. Many times we assume a transformer or coil is linear when in fact it not and this in itself can account for significant errors.
Yes but there is a limit what LTspice can simulate. For example, in the example above with the clapping core, it could not simulate the mechanical or acoustic sounds from the core - the ones that are not functions of the instantaneous current flowing through the coil. Even if these functions are non-linear.
Itsu, yes I noticed it too.
One more thing: if I plot the current through the SW switch, there is a 13 Amper "glitch" at the moment the switch turns on at 1.05 ms moment and the 24 V input voltage appears on the common connection point of SW, C4, R1 and Emitter. Strange for sure. The highest current via the SW should be not higher than (24V-VBE) / (300+48 Ohm) = 67 mA (VBE=0.7V)
Gyula
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.01, 16:23:22
After some investigation what I was able to ascertain, it is apparently a type of isolation transformer . Although the references are not the same, but I think it must be similar.
I leave a summary of the information I was able to collect. In the photos, some apparently identical coils are highlighted.
The insulating converter transformer PIT is equipped with an EE-type core comprising two E-type cores CR1, CR2 of ferrite material which are assembled so that the magnetic legs thereof are confronted to each other, and the primary winding N1 and the secondary winding N2 are wound around the center magnetic leg of the EE-type core while they are separated from each other by using a dividing bobbin B. Further, the center magnetic leg is designed to have a gap G therein, thereby achieving loose coupling based on a required coupling coefficient.
The gap G can be formed by making the center magnetic leg of each of the E-type cores CR1, CR2 shorter than the two outer magnetic legs thereof. Further, the coupling coefficient k is set to about 0.7 to 0.8 so that loose coupling can be attained, and thus it is harder to achieve the saturation state.
Transformer PIT can be implemented in any combination case where the polarities of the primary winding N1 and the secondary winding N2 are in additive polarity relationship or subtractive polarity relationship and the winding directions thereof are the same (coaxial) or opposite to each other.
Thanks for the info Nelson, but it seems to me that your CMC does not have 2 E-type cores, but more like Gyula mentioned a C and I type core.
Anyway, they could work similar.
I have some (large) E-type cores and a former, so would be able to make one.
Can you determine if your coils are in the same winding direction or opposite?
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.01, 19:02:28
Hi Nelson,
does your ultimo-functional2.asc runs continuously?
When running here, it stops around 400ms.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
I just tested 500 ms and it stopped at 400ms.
It was curious to note that there is a negative curve since the beginning of the simulation, being possible to verify that IV1 is approaching the positive value until it stops at zero.
About the wiring of the coils :
Seems to me that coils wired in opposite directions , like L1 >=< L2 .
Quote from: gyula on 2020.05.01, 19:40:06
Itsu, yes I noticed it too.
One more thing: if I plot the current through the SW switch, there is a 13 Amper "glitch" at the moment the switch turns on at 1.05 ms moment and the 24 V input voltage appears on the common connection point of SW, C4, R1 and Emitter. Strange for sure. The highest current via the SW should be not higher than (24V-VBE) / (300+48 Ohm) = 67 mA (VBE=0.7V)
Gyula
Hi gyula ,
I had also seen this unrealistic peak current value, but the SW is dependent from V2 to open , however SW is supposed to remain isolated from V2.
If you measure the voltage peak in Vn007 in 10ms he achieve something like -360V . lol
PS- maybe LTspice consider a fast electric burst transients in th switch open ??????
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.01, 19:52:15
Hi Itsu,
I just tested 500 ms and it stopped at 400ms.
It was curious to note that there is a negative curve since the beginning of the simulation, being possible to verify that IV1 is approaching the positive value until it stops at zero.
About the wiring of the coils :
Seems to me that coils wired in opposite directions , like L1 >=< L2 .
Thanks for the wiring info on your CMC.
Looking closer to my CMC's (like your 1.jpg picture in post #502), it seems to me that these ARE made
of 2 E-type cores (in one piece) and there probably is a gap in the center where the coils are wound
over it, AND mine are wound in opposite direction.
So the CMC's i have do look like your PIT transformer, only the wire thickness could be the difference.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
The first 4 pictures are on Digikey or are on similar to Digikey CMCs and the last 3 pictures are that of Nelson's.
so if you mean this https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=34880 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=34880) it is from Digikey.
I attached Nelson's photo on his transformer, no ferrite core bridge is seen at its bottom part, the C core is on the top part and the I core is in the middle, inside the bobbin.
Gyula
I found data sheets on Epson Power line chokes, may be useful, includes stray inductances.
Nelson,
OK, here is my version of your sim which has a couple of modifications. Most involve rotation of components so the components conventional current flow is with the circuit current flows, S1 modified, and C7 moved to parallel L3 instead of D7. Everything else is left the same except the timing of S1 which you can see in the pulse gen V2.
If C7 is left in it's original position, Q1 is starved of base current at about 400ms and the oscillation shuts down.
The first pix is the sim running out to 1 second at which time we reach near complete stabilization.
The next pix is an expanded view of the last 8 cycles of the simulation.
The last pix shows the power levels of E1, E2 and the input power drawn from the supply V1.
I guess what I need to know is, what is the specific function of this circuit?
Regards,
Pm
Edit: Attached the .asc file.
Quote from: partzman on 2020.05.01, 22:35:10
Nelson,
OK, here is my version of your sim which has a couple of modifications. Most involve rotation of components so the components conventional current flow is with the circuit current flows, S1 modified, and C7 moved to parallel L3 instead of D7. Everything else is left the same except the timing of S1 which you can see in the pulse gen V2.
If C7 is left in it's original position, Q1 is starved of base current at about 400ms and the oscillation shuts down.
The first pix is the sim running out to 1 second at which time we reach near complete stabilization.
The next pix is an expanded view of the last 8 cycles of the simulation.
The last pix shows the power levels of E1, E2 and the input power drawn from the supply V1.
I guess what I need to know is, what is the specific function of this circuit?
Regards,
Pm
Edit: Attached the .asc file.
First of all I want to say that I will be as direct as possible in my answer face to your approach in your last posts, where I sincerely felt some hostility and cynicism by your side just because I expressed my doubts about the reliability of LTspice in certain situations .
When I ask you some considerations regarding the values obtained during the transient simulation on this specific diagram I was not considering the profound changes you made to the original circuit but try to understand the actual circuit .
The idea would be to justify and interpret the result of the original circuit, but after the changes you made, what can I say? I had the same doubts that I had previously.
This diagram was initially designed by Itsu, and later modified by me to try to recreate a specific real life circuit that we suspect have some sort of negative resistance in their operation, but apparently, you didn't even give the opportunity to check that, face your question at the end of the post,where you ask what is the specific function of this circuit.
Some of the changes you have made, namely in the configuration of V2 pulse time , T Rise and T fall , period , completely change the behavior of the simulated circuit, but you should know that better than me, because it was you that conveniently change the values. Period value of 1second ?? SW is supposed to simulate a action of a simple push button , My question is why you made that changes? What is the point of change that values ?
About C7 capacitor, the one you change from original position to parallel with L3 You justified that if you do not change the position of C7 the oscillation would die at 400ms , but on the real circuit, it doesn't stop ... And one of the main points, would be exactly to understand why in the simulation in LTspice, he stops at 400ms, but you discover the problem was C7 capacitor... Should I change the original real circuit according to your simulation to you believe yourself that Ltspice is extremely accurate? Seem is not, but I understand, to you is now properly configured.
I don't think I have anything else to add to my answer
Many thanks.
Best rewards
Neslon
QuoteFirst of all I want to say that I will be as direct as possible in my answer face to your approach in your last posts, where I sincerely felt some hostility and cynicism by your side just because I expressed my doubts about the reliability of LTspice in certain situations .
I would agree and a simulation is not reality. I told many in the past that a sim will not show the real process unless they actually understand the process before hand which they do not.
As well, a simple line based flow diagram cannot simulate a geometry dependent process acting within a three dimensional space because the most important variables are missing.
I used to use many electronics sims as well as Solidworks Flow cfd simulators however to honest it was mostly wasted time in retrospect. It was easier to just build the real thing on a manageable scale and learn the concepts in reality.
Regards
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.02, 02:33:54
First of all I want to say that I will be as direct as possible in my answer face to your approach in your last posts, where I sincerely felt some hostility and cynicism by your side just because I expressed my doubts about the reliability of LTspice in certain situations .
When I ask you some considerations regarding the values obtained during the transient simulation on this specific diagram I was not considering the profound changes you made to the original circuit but try to understand the actual circuit .
The idea would be to justify and interpret the result of the original circuit, but after the changes you made, what can I say? I had the same doubts that I had previously.
This diagram was initially designed by Itsu, and later modified by me to try to recreate a specific real life circuit that we suspect have some sort of negative resistance in their operation, but apparently, you didn't even give the opportunity to check that, face your question at the end of the post,where you ask what is the specific function of this circuit.
Some of the changes you have made, namely in the configuration of V2 pulse time , T Rise and T fall , period , completely change the behavior of the simulated circuit, but you should know that better than me, because it was you that conveniently change the values. Period value of 1second ?? SW is supposed to simulate a action of a simple push button , My question is why you made that changes? What is the point of change that values ?
About C7 capacitor, the one you change from original position to parallel with L3 You justified that if you do not change the position of C7 the oscillation would die at 400ms , but on the real circuit, it doesn't stop ... And one of the main points, would be exactly to understand why in the simulation in LTspice, he stops at 400ms, but you discover the problem was C7 capacitor... Should I change the original real circuit according to your simulation to you believe yourself that Ltspice is extremely accurate? Seem is not, but I understand, to you is now properly configured.
I don't think I have anything else to add to my answer
Many thanks.
Best rewards
Hi Nelson,
being direct is fine, i try to do the same myself, but for me, i do not share the felt hostility and cynisme in Partzman his post.
Please always stay aware that we all are different and thus expressing ourself differently and then there is the language barrier.
Partzman did in my opinion a good job in analyzing the circuit and why it stops, and tried to make it run by doing some modifications.
I do agree that that was not what you had asked for and thereby he changed the circuit in such a way that it is not the same circuit, but hey, that was probably his drive at that moment, make it run.
Also he could have read up on the reason why we are replicating (real and sim) this specific circuit as it shows some (in my opinion) fascinating effect (brighter output bulb then input bulb).
There are already severall posts from verpies and lost_bro saying that a sim is fine for electronics, but lacks some typical physics behaviour which very well could be involved here.
Anyway, we all here are doing our "thing" to assist in unraveling this special effect you show in your video's
Lets stay focussed and take the nuggets we can use and ignore the ones that are not relevant.
Thanks Itsu
Quote from: gyula on 2020.05.01, 20:58:40
Hi Itsu,
The first 4 pictures are on Digikey or are on similar to Digikey CMCs and the last 3 pictures are that of Nelson's.
so if you mean this https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=34880 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=34880) it is from Digikey.
I attached Nelson's photo on his transformer, no ferrite core bridge is seen at its bottom part, the C core is on the top part and the I core is in the middle, inside the bobbin.
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
Yes, i was referring to MY CMC (see picture below) which i thought looked the same as in the 1.jpg picture in post #502 from Nelson.
MY CMC has the same layout as what Nelson showed in his PIT transformer (2x E-core), so no need for me to make one using my large E-cores as i already have small ones which i can modify (rewind with thinner wire).
But they are still not the same as what Nelson is using in his circuit as that is, like you showed above, a C- and I-core, so not a double e-core.
Itsu
Quote from: gyula on 2020.05.01, 22:24:12
I found data sheets on Epson Power line chokes, may be useful, includes stray inductances.
Good find Gyula, those look more like the one Nelson has.
But the 15mH one has 2.4 ohm resistance, so much more then the measured 0.6 ohm.
Could it be that Nelson his CMC is running near or at resonance?
The ones shown here do that at severall hundreds of Khz, not really the frequency we run at.
Itsu
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.02, 02:33:54
First of all I want to say that I will be as direct as possible in my answer face to your approach in your last posts, where I sincerely felt some hostility and cynicism by your side just because I expressed my doubts about the reliability of LTspice in certain situations .
When I ask you some considerations regarding the values obtained during the transient simulation on this specific diagram I was not considering the profound changes you made to the original circuit but try to understand the actual circuit .
The idea would be to justify and interpret the result of the original circuit, but after the changes you made, what can I say? I had the same doubts that I had previously.
This diagram was initially designed by Itsu, and later modified by me to try to recreate a specific real life circuit that we suspect have some sort of negative resistance in their operation, but apparently, you didn't even give the opportunity to check that, face your question at the end of the post,where you ask what is the specific function of this circuit.
Some of the changes you have made, namely in the configuration of V2 pulse time , T Rise and T fall , period , completely change the behavior of the simulated circuit, but you should know that better than me, because it was you that conveniently change the values. Period value of 1second ?? SW is supposed to simulate a action of a simple push button , My question is why you made that changes? What is the point of change that values ?
About C7 capacitor, the one you change from original position to parallel with L3 You justified that if you do not change the position of C7 the oscillation would die at 400ms , but on the real circuit, it doesn't stop ... And one of the main points, would be exactly to understand why in the simulation in LTspice, he stops at 400ms, but you discover the problem was C7 capacitor... Should I change the original real circuit according to your simulation to you believe yourself that Ltspice is extremely accurate? Seem is not, but I understand, to you is now properly configured.
I don't think I have anything else to add to my answer
Many thanks.
Best rewards
Hi Nelson,
My impression is that Partzman did not mean cynicism and hostility towards you in his latest posts here. I know that he has been using LTspice for several years now, he included many screenshots on waveforms and circuits in his posts both here at his bench thread and at overunity.com in different threads. What I sense from him is a helping intention to rectify our (me and Itsu) lack of expertize in using LTspice. Regarding his question at the end of his post: I assume he did not wade through the long pages of the this thread and did not read what Itsu clearly wrote that you did not claim ou with this circuit. Maybe he has not watched your 3 videos on this circuit either.
Regarding rise and fall time for a pulse generator in LTspice, I found this explanation at this site,
" Trise is the rise time of the pulse. LTspice allows this value to be zero, but zero rise time may cause convergence problems in some transient analysis simulations. "
see here: http://denethor.wlu.ca/ltspice/#vpulse (http://denethor.wlu.ca/ltspice/#vpulse)
I think Partzman wanted to avoid possible convergence problems in the simulation and changed the zero rise and fall times that were included in the ultimo-funcional.asc sim file. I did not know about the convergence problems until now.
You surely know that zero rise and fall times are impossible to achieve in practice, the best values I think are in the picosecond range.
Regarding the 1 second long period value for the pulse generator I think it was chosen on purpose to last exactly till the 1 second long transient analysis time, I cannot see any wrong with this. Maybe you see this differently which is fine but then let's discuss this if you wish.
Nelson, I am also as direct as possible and I am not defending Partzman against you, please understand this. We need to be as objective as possible and include as small subjectivism as possible.
I remain open to analyse further this oscillator circuit and I suggest this to all of us. We need to bear with each other to proceed. O0
Regards
Gyula
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.02, 02:33:54
First of all I want to say that I will be as direct as possible in my answer face to your approach in your last posts, where I sincerely felt some hostility and cynicism by your side just because I expressed my doubts about the reliability of LTspice in certain situations .
Nelson, I'm sorry if I came across as hostile because that was not my intent and I was certainly not considering any negative comments about LtSpice. Oh I defend the program all right but it is from due respect of the software's ability and it's author.
Quote
When I ask you some considerations regarding the values obtained during the transient simulation on this specific diagram I was not considering the profound changes you made to the original circuit but try to understand the actual circuit .
The idea would be to justify and interpret the result of the original circuit, but after the changes you made, what can I say? I had the same doubts that I had previously.
I again apologize for making changes to your circuit but I've been a circuit designer for over 50 years so I took some liberties based on experience.
Quote
This diagram was initially designed by Itsu, and later modified by me to try to recreate a specific real life circuit that we suspect have some sort of negative resistance in their operation, but apparently, you didn't even give the opportunity to check that, face your question at the end of the post,where you ask what is the specific function of this circuit.
So, the answer to my question is, the circuit is to basically perform as a negative resistance oscillator. That is basically what I wanted to know.
Quote
Some of the changes you have made, namely in the configuration of V2 pulse time , T Rise and T fall , period , completely change the behavior of the simulated circuit, but you should know that better than me, because it was you that conveniently change the values. Period value of 1second ?? SW is supposed to simulate a action of a simple push button , My question is why you made that changes? What is the point of change that values ?
Well, the circuit will not self start without S1 due to the fact that the emitter-base junction of Q1 is shunted by R1 and with no other bias means to the base of Q1, the circuit will not oscillate. So, I configured S1 to turn on for 1ms with a delay of 1us after the sim start to pre-charge C4 which will then provide enough base current for the oscillation to start. I used definite rise and fall time values so LtSpice would not supply default values.
The 1s period for S1 could be anything >1ms and not affect the circuit operation because only 1 cycle is selected.
So, IMO the changes I made to S1 have no material affect on the circuit's operation except at start up. This should be of no concern unless one is expecting any OU behavior during this time.
Using S1 is not the best method to start this circuit as is evidenced by the large collector current of Q1 which is why I start the plot log with a 4ms delay so these transients don't set the current auto scaling so high that the normal run currents can't be seen properly on the plot.
Quote
About C7 capacitor, the one you change from original position to parallel with L3 You justified that if you do not change the position of C7 the oscillation would die at 400ms , but on the real circuit, it doesn't stop ... And one of the main points, would be exactly to understand why in the simulation in LTspice, he stops at 400ms, but you discover the problem was C7 capacitor... Should I change the original real circuit according to your simulation to you believe yourself that Ltspice is extremely accurate? Seem is not, but I understand, to you is now properly configured.
The reason oscillation stops at ~400ms is due to the fact that the base of Q1 diminishes over time to the point of being unable to turn Q1 back on. I honestly see no earthly reason for C7 to parallel D4 whether it is the original running circuit or not. D4 would simply look like a leaky diode in the reverse direction but perhaps I'm missing something here.
Placing C7 in parallel with L3 provides resonance with the leakage inductance of L2/L3 and with the rest of the circuit configuration prevents the diminishing base current of Q1. One of the reasons that Q1's base current diminishes with C7 in it's original position is due to the discharge of L1 into the base which drives the base-collector junction into forward bias and raises the voltage at VC4h to ~40v peak during this time.
A possible solution would be to increase the beta or HFE of Q1 as it is listed with a BF=16.28 in the file!?! This can be done using an undocumented command called AKO or "A Kind Of". This can be found with syntax at-
http://ltwiki.org/?title=Undocumented_LTspice
Regards,
Pm
Edit: The above AKO works with LtSpice IV but not sure about XVII. Due to quirks with XVII, I only use IV.
Quote
I don't think I have anything else to add to my answer
Many thanks.
Best rewards
Hey guys:
I think that Nelson is right about replicating his circuit as exact as possible. Which may not be that easy to do, finding old Tv chokes, and all.
Here is what I came up with from my junk pile, perhaps one of them can be wound with the right gauge wire, and number of turns, etz...
Maybe forget about the simulations, and focus on replication? For now.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.02, 09:18:00
....
Could it be that Nelson his CMC is running near or at resonance?
The ones shown here do that at severall hundreds of Khz, not really the frequency we run at.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Well, the L2 coil part of the 1:1 transformer is embedded into capacitor "enviroment" anyway, which may create near resonance conditions but now that we know all the capacitor and coil values, my simulations have not shown resonant conditions. This would mean a sinosoidal or nearly sinosoidal waveform across L2 and / or L3 but I got a distorted sinewave across L2 and distorted square wave like waveform across L3.
The data sheet I uploaded shows CM chokes for power line filtering, they attenuate unwanted signals coming back from switch mode power supply circuits that are fed from the mains. So the test frequencies of some ten to 100 kHz range for these chokes cover the operating frequencies of those circuits. They can opeate in the 10 -20 kHz range too of course.
It is unfortunate that such off:the_shelf choke with 10 mH inductance has rather high, 1.75 Ohm DC resistance, they did not use thicker wire for their windings, that is all.
Gyula
FWIW, the reason the simulation stops at ~400ms with the original circuit is that the load on the secondary L3 diminishes as C8 charges until it reaches a voltage nearing the supply voltage. This reduced load is reflected to L2 and thus reduces the charge on C4 which in turn reduces the base current in Q1. By simply shorting across C8, the sim will run continuously with considerable ripple across E2. Changing C6 to 400uf yields a smooth dc output across E2 and various measurements can then be taken.
Since simulation appears to no longer be important or needed, I'll go back to my other work.
Regards,
Pm
PM:
That's not what I meant. I understand the logic in the low base current stopping the oscillations, but won't changing the specs to obtain a clean signal, and oscillation not going to affect things, a bit.
Quote from: NickZ on 2020.05.02, 17:21:12
PM:
That's not what I meant. I understand the logic in the low base current stopping the oscillations, but won't changing the specs to obtain a clean signal, and oscillation not going to affect things, a bit.
Nick,
Well yes it will so I guess I have misunderstood this whole exercise. I thought the idea was to find the reason the sim stopped functioning when someone's actual bench circuit did not. I will have to go back thru the thread to see who actually built the circuit and if there was documentation showing anything about the performance, etc.
I thought that since this was an OU forum that there was a possibility this circuit exhibited OU but I guess I'm wrong in that assumption so for that I apologize!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: NickZ on 2020.05.02, 15:39:16
Hey guys:
I think that Nelson is right about replicating his circuit as exact as possible. Which may not be that easy to do, finding old Tv chokes, and all.
Here is what I came up with from my junk pile, perhaps one of them can be wound with the right gauge wire, and number of turns, etz...
Maybe forget about the simulations, and focus on replication? For now.
Nick,
My real life replication and sim are in accordance with each other concerning the general outcome that is a low output power compared to the input power.
There are minor differences in signal shapes and amplitudes, but they overall match, so i see no reason to only focus on replication.
I can quickly change something in the sim to see what effect it has before changing my replication.
Itsu
Quote from: gyula on 2020.05.02, 16:04:49
Hi Itsu,
Well, the L2 coil part of the 1:1 transformer is embedded into capacitor "enviroment" anyway, which may create near resonance conditions but now that we know all the capacitor and coil values, my simulations have not shown resonant conditions. This would mean a sinosoidal or nearly sinosoidal waveform across L2 and / or L3 but I got a distorted sinewave across L2 and distorted square wave like waveform across L3.
The data sheet I uploaded shows CM chokes for power line filtering, they attenuate unwanted signals coming back from switch mode power supply circuits that are fed from the mains. So the test frequencies of some ten to 100 kHz range for these chokes cover the operating frequencies of those circuits. They can opeate in the 10 -20 kHz range too of course.
It is unfortunate that such off:the_shelf choke with 10 mH inductance has rather high, 1.75 Ohm DC resistance, they did not use thicker wire for their windings, that is all.
Gyula
Gyula,
yes, i tried to manipulate the caps around L2/L3 to get them into resonance, but this means to deviate from the value's given by Nelson.
I found a CMC close to your Epson types with 2x u-cores and 2 double coils measuring 2x 43mH.
I have removed the outer coils and adjusted them to be 2x 13mH @ 0.2 Ohm.
But initial tests shows same behaviour as last tests using Nelson his cap value's.
High output voltage (340V), but when shorting about 5mA through E2 while input goes from 31mA to 18mA.
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2020.05.02, 18:33:23
Nick,
Well yes it will so I guess I have misunderstood this whole exercise. I thought the idea was to find the reason the sim stopped functioning when someone's actual bench circuit did not. I will have to go back thru the thread to see who actually built the circuit and if there was documentation showing anything about the performance, etc.
I thought that since this was an OU forum that there was a possibility this circuit exhibited OU but I guess I'm wrong in that assumption so for that I apologize!
Regards,
Pm
Partzman,
we very much appreciate your stepping in in trying to understand why the sim does what it does.
Especially that the reduced output load is reflected back to L2 causing the oscillation to stop and how to circumvent this.
But we (Nelson) have a circuit that is made out of certain fixed components which shows via bulbs (identical bulbs, 1 in the input lead, another in the output lead) that more current is flowing through
the output bulb then in the input bulb when shorting the output.
So the sim needs to be following these fixed components to be of any value.
No OU is claimed as no proper measurements have been done due to lack of equipment.
So therefor my real life replication in trying to mimic this "more current through the output bulb then through the input bulb when shorted".
Up till now my real life replication does not show the effect (which could be negative resistance), so that is what we are looking for, also using the Sim.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.02, 18:57:44
Gyula,
yes, i tried to manipulate the caps around L2/L3 to get them into resonance, but this means to deviate from the value's given by Nelson.
I found a CMC close to your Epson types with 2x u-cores and 2 double coils measuring 2x 43mH.
I have removed the outer coils and adjusted them to be 2x 13mH @ 0.2 Ohm.
But initial tests shows same behaviour as last tests using Nelson his cap value's.
High output voltage (340V), but when shorting about 5mA through E2 while input goes from 31mA to 18mA.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Thanks for making another CMC choke. Even though it looks good with the two facing C cores, it is bad it behaves as the earlier choke.
Hopefully Nelson can borrow the LCR meter again from his friend and will return with his measurements on his CMC what Partzman suggested in his post # 508.
You may also wish to do that on your new CMC.
This way your replication may get closer to Nelson's oscillator.
Thanks
Gyula
Thanks Gyula, yes i can do that tomorrow.
By the way, the oscillation frequency on my real life replication is now around 20khz which is close to Nelson his 19Khz.
Hmmm, when taking Partzman suggestion and shorting c8, it indeed now runs on, but it seems that more current/power is running through/in E2 then in E1.........
Itsu
PM:
Thanks for your explanation, and going through what you've just tested. That is really a step forward, at least to know why the sim circuit stops, and what can be done about it.
Looks like itsu just gave a nice explanation on the goals with this circuit. And how the simulations are similar to his actual tests. So, it looks like we have to wait and see what the right transistor is going to do, when itsu gets it. I know how tricky using different transistors, coils, caps, and all can be, to try and replicate a delicate anomaly, like this.
Good luck with that, to all following along.
NickZ
Nick,
What are you doing here?
Has the censorship at Stefan's place gotten so bad ?
Quote from: NickZ on 2020.05.03, 00:39:47
PM:
Thanks for your explanation, and going through what you've just tested. That is really a step forward, at least to know why the sim circuit stops, and what can be done about it.
Looks like itsu just gave a nice explanation on the goals with this circuit. And how the simulations are similar to his actual tests. So, it looks like we have to wait and see what the right transistor is going to do, when itsu gets it. I know how tricky using different transistors, coils, caps, and all can be, to try and replicate a delicate anomaly, like this.
Good luck with that, to all following along.
NickZ
Nick,
i received he correct transisor 4 days ago, see post #492 2 pages back:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg81493#msg81493
Anyway, at least my sim shows the special effect of Nelson his circuit, so hopefully at others it behaves the same and we can analyze how that comes and how to replicate in real life.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
I find similar behaviour like you when the E2 bulb is directly across the output (i.e. the output is shorted). I attached first the unshorted and then the shorted simulation results for the currents and power levels in the bulbs E1 and E2.
I had the simulator calculate the average input power too which was 506.43 mW (Integral 25.32 mJ) in the unshorted and
it was 501.43 mW (Integral 25.08 mJ) in the shorted case, just to learn about the input power levels too.
Out of curiosity, I repeated this same for the circuit file Partzman uploaded and it also shows similar behavior.
Gyula
Thanks for confirmation Gyula.
But in the unshorted version, it still stops at 400ms, right?
So what does this say about the Nelson circuit, does it mean that what Nelson showed can be simulated?
If so, then it must be electronically explainable.
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2020.05.01, 13:31:45
The special or unique CMC that you've shown can be profiled in the following manner so it can be replicated or simulated by others with reasonable accuracy.
First, measure the inductance of each winding which in this case they will be close to the same. This can be done at a low level with an inductance meter or with a high level from a switching circuit that will allow one to measure L = E*dt/di . This last measurement will also allow one to check to see if the core is not saturating at the required operating mmf or coil current.
Next, take inductance measurements of the two coils connected in series aiding L+ and series bucking L-. The L- or bucking measurement will be lower than the L+ or aiding. Then using the formula M = ((L+)-(L-))/4 we now have the mutual inductance.
Using the mutual inductance we can now calculate the k or coupling factor with k = M/(Lp*Ls)^.5 but since Lp = Ls we can use k = M/Lp .
With this info, the transformer can now be built or simulated with the additional info on dc resistance. There will a slight inter-turn capacitance and very little inter-winding capacitance due to the split bobbin design so both can be ignored without much error..
As a check, we can calculate the leakage inductance with Lpleak = (1-k)*Lp and the primary inductance with the secondary shorted with Lpss = (1-K^2)*Lp .
I might add that most CMCs have a slight gap in the ferrite cores to help prevent saturation at higher current levels.
Regards,
Pm
Using again Partzman above calculations for the coupling factor etc. on my newly build 13mH CMC i get:
measured @ 10Khz
Lp = 12.3mH
Ls = 12.3mH
L+ = 48.5mH
L- = 57uH
M = 48.44/4 = 12.11mH
K = 12.11/12.3 = 0.98
Lpleak = 0.246mH
Lpss = 0.49mH
Edit, i used a measured 227nF cap to get resonance for:
Lpleak (sec. paralleled with cap) at 7.4MHz.
Lpss (prim in series with cap, sec shorted) at 6.65MHz.
Not sure now how to calculate the Lpleak and Lpss from this.
when using this resonance calculator http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm i get:
Lpleak = 0.0020uH
Lpss = 0.0025uH
which seems very low.
Itsu
Partzman,
First of all my apologies for my late reply, however someone who was dear and close to me, died yesterday from this evil plague , and I feel quite low right now, but
i would like to answer some of your points, even if we have a different opinion.
"Nelson, I'm sorry if I came across as hostile because that was not my intent and I was certainly not considering any negative comments about LtSpice.Oh I defend the program all right but it is from due respect of the software's ability and it's author."
I have nothing against the fact that you defend the LTspice program, or its author.
Myself wanted to learn to work with Ltspice and I start motivated by Itsu and Gyula because I recognize qualities in it, but without agreeing that it can be used in all situation, like in Aetheric situations by your own words .
I guess we are not really dealing with etheric issues in this Forum , even more when it comes to the Overunity Research forum.
We better leave aside the "unicorns" and fairy tales aside, and be objective in the real purpose that connects us to all who dedicate their time to research in this area of OU.
"I again apologize for making changes to your circuit but I've been a circuit designer for over 50 years so I took some liberties based on experience."
"IMO the changes I made to S1 have no material affect on the circuit's operation except at start up. This should be of no concern unless one is expecting any OU behavior during this time."
I know you have a long experience in simulating LTspice, I really appreciate your work that I follow over the years as well as other distinguished users , and I am sure that the changes you made will have the best intention, but in my opinion, some of these changes don't seem to fit the circuit that we are work and try understand.
I'll give you an example:
SW, it would be supposed to recreate a push button, giving only one pulse for the oscillator to start, and nothing more, however you can verify that the SW of your diagram, creates multiple pulses throughout the simulation, when it was supposed to be just one pulse .Am i wrong about my interpretation?
Try to take a sample in SW in your diagram and mine and you will be able to understand what I mean because the difference is evident.
This interferes too in some way in the behavior of C5 in the circuit, both in LTspice and in the real life circuit.
"I will have to go back thru the thread to see who actually built the circuit and if there was documentation showing anything about the performance, etc."
The only documentation related to the circuit is the one that has already been made available some posts ago, and as you have already been told, no claim has been made. By knowing the behavior of some elements of this forum or in OU, myself anticipated it;) because it was expected that this would happen.
I have learned over the last years that even the apparently most evident manifestations of possible OU, can sometimes be a trap either for those who make the claims, or for those who challenge them to probe the opposite.
And I can assure you that I have been accused many times in an unfounded way, of making false claims, without even having the opportunity to express myself or even to others replicated some of my work, for lack of data.
But that is not relevant at the moment. I am over that a long time ago.
"I thought that since this was an OU forum that there was a possibility this circuit exhibited OU but I guess I'm wrong in that assumption so for that I apologize!"
Partzman ,You don't have to apologize for that.
It really is supposed that a forum like these investigates possible cases of OU, however if i am not wrong in the long time of existence of this forum, no concrete case has yet appeared or validated, right?
Or at least some of those possible cases died along the way ...
Many of them, without scientific confirmation or even their correct replication, but sometimes through an easier and superficial judgment by some , that are false and impossible to exhibit some kind of sign of OU .
For this reason, I am grateful to a minority of persons in this forum Like Itsu which in my opinion is one of the best replicators on this forum , who manage to put self-centeredness aside, and are governed by the necessary pragmatism, to evaluate certain circuits dissected here.
So I repeat again:
You do not need to apologize for assuming that there might be a possibility that this circuit would exhibit some kind of manifestation OU, It seems logical to me, otherwise why would it be called Overunity Research?
it seems to me that we are in tune about this point .
Contrary to what maybe you may think, I appreciate your work and help, My thanks
Partzman best rewards
Quote from: verpies on 2020.05.03, 07:29:54
Nick,
What are you doing here?
Has the censorship at Stefan's place gotten so bad ?
itsu: Ok, thanks for mentioning that to me about finally having the right transistor, and better simulation tests now also.
Verpies: Yea, things are a bit boring there at times. Lots of talk, but no action. And I like action, even if it gets you nowhere.
BTW: What were you doing there? Were you checking into Lanca's recuperation at the asylum, perhaps.
Getting rid of him is like trying to get rid of an unwanted cat.
Sorry guys, I don't want to distract anyone here. So, I'll cut the small talk. Just like to have "a little funny with friends", like Nelson once said.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.03, 15:18:00
Thanks for confirmation Gyula.
But in the unshorted version, it still stops at 400ms, right?
So what does this say about the Nelson circuit, does it mean that what Nelson showed can be simulated?
If so, then it must be electronically explainable.
Itsu
Itsu,
One explanation that may provide the answer is that as far as I can see, the parameter list for BJTs in LtSpice does not include any parameters for the emitter-base negative resistance region nor the typical zener voltage breakdown under reverse bias conditions. Lacking these parameters could/would affect the simulation IMO.
For example in my sim with the output shorted, when Q1 has 42v peak on the emitter, the base voltage is 23.53v peak, and the collector is 23.03v peak. The voltage differential between the reverse biased base-emitter junction is far above a normal NPN which would typically zener at ~7-9v.
Also with the base-collector junction forward biased, in years past this would have been termed an "inverted" operation for the NPN. IOW, with the b-c forward biased and the b-e reversed biased, the roles of the emitter and collector have been switched or inverted. Most BJTs will operate in this manner although the performance is greatly reduced.
So without an accurate model for the BJT, it may not be possible to simulate Nelson's circuit accurately.
Regards,
Pm
Dear Nelson.
I'm truly sorry to read of your news.
Please accept our deepest condolences.
Kind regards, Graham and Jules.
Hi Nelson,
Sorry to hear about your loss, my condolences to you and yours.
Kind regards
Gyula
Nelson,
i am also very sorry to hear about your loss, my condolences.
Thanks for still taking the time to explain some things.
Stay safe, regards itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2020.05.03, 15:56:03
Itsu,
One explanation that may provide the answer is that as far as I can see, the parameter list for BJTs in LtSpice does not include any parameters for the emitter-base negative resistance region nor the typical zener voltage breakdown under reverse bias conditions. Lacking these parameters could/would affect the simulation IMO.
For example in my sim with the output shorted, when Q1 has 42v peak on the emitter, the base voltage is 23.53v peak, and the collector is 23.03v peak. The voltage differential between the reverse biased base-emitter junction is far above a normal NPN which would typically zener at ~7-9v.
Also with the base-collector junction forward biased, in years past this would have been termed an "inverted" operation for the NPN. IOW, with the b-c forward biased and the b-e reversed biased, the roles of the emitter and collector have been switched or inverted. Most BJTs will operate in this manner although the performance is greatly reduced.
So without an accurate model for the BJT, it may not be possible to simulate Nelson's circuit accurately.
Regards,
Pm
Partzman,
thanks for the info, i do indeed read that most BJT's do not include any parameters for the emitter-base negative resistance region nor the typical zener voltage breakdown under reverse bias conditions.
This begs the question, could it be that Nelson has a partially defective transistor in his circuit.
If so, that could explain the differences between my replication and his original and the fact that the sim now shows similar effect as the original.
I also means that a working replication would be virtual impossible.
Far fetched i know, so i will continue to work on my circuit to get the effect to manifest.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: NickZ on 2020.05.03, 15:43:10
BTW: What were you doing there? Were you checking into Lanca's recuperation at the asylum, perhaps.
Just curious what are you up to and some of the remaining goodies there.
Lanca is something else. He has a real gift for friendly disruption or is an AI.
Nelson,
I too wish to express my condolences for your most recent loss. These are difficult times I'm afraid.
Also, thank you for responding to my post. I will comment later at a more appropriate time.
Regards,
Pm
Hi Partzman,
In the Help section of LTspice, this is written on the bipolar transtor model description:
The model parameter "level" can be used to specify another type of BJT in LTspice.
Set Level=504 to use the MEXTRAM 504 transistor due to NXP(Philips).
Due to a generous contribution of source code from Dr.-Ing. Dietmar Warning of DAnalyse GmbH, Berlin, Germany; LTspice includes a version of VBIC. Set Level=9 to use the alternate device. Level 4 is a synonym for level 9. The following documentation has been supplied by Dr. Warning:
VBIC - Vertical Bipolar Inter Company model
The VBIC model is a extended development of the Standard Gummel-Poon (SGP) model with the focus of integrated bipolar transistors in today's modern semiconductor technologies. With the implemented modified Quasi-Saturation model from Kull and Nagel it is also possible to model the special output characteristic of switching transistors. It is a widely used alternative to the SGP model for silicon, SiGe and III-V HBT devices.
VBIC Capabilities compared to Standard Gummel-Poon Model
o Integrated Substrate transistor for parasitic devices in integrated processes
o Weak avalanche and Base-emitter breakdown model
o Improved Early Effect modeling
o Physical separation of Ic and Ib
o Improved Depletion capacitance model
o Improved temperature modeling
The question now is where the parameters for this VBIC extended model can be obtained and applied. Of course this may still not give real life transistor models. And maybe these parameters were for internal company use only and the possibility for using them just remained inside the source code.
If you or anyone else can address these questions, please tell.
Gyula
I want to thank you all very much for your words of comfort from heart.
Thanks
Quote from: gyula on 2020.05.03, 20:47:43
Hi Partzman,
In the Help section of LTspice, this is written on the bipolar transtor model description:
The model parameter "level" can be used to specify another type of BJT in LTspice.
Set Level=504 to use the MEXTRAM 504 transistor due to NXP(Philips).
Due to a generous contribution of source code from Dr.-Ing. Dietmar Warning of DAnalyse GmbH, Berlin, Germany; LTspice includes a version of VBIC. Set Level=9 to use the alternate device. Level 4 is a synonym for level 9. The following documentation has been supplied by Dr. Warning:
VBIC - Vertical Bipolar Inter Company model
The VBIC model is a extended development of the Standard Gummel-Poon (SGP) model with the focus of integrated bipolar transistors in today's modern semiconductor technologies. With the implemented modified Quasi-Saturation model from Kull and Nagel it is also possible to model the special output characteristic of switching transistors. It is a widely used alternative to the SGP model for silicon, SiGe and III-V HBT devices.
VBIC Capabilities compared to Standard Gummel-Poon Model
o Integrated Substrate transistor for parasitic devices in integrated processes
o Weak avalanche and Base-emitter breakdown model
o Improved Early Effect modeling
o Physical separation of Ic and Ib
o Improved Depletion capacitance model
o Improved temperature modeling
The question now is where the parameters for this VBIC extended model can be obtained and applied. Of course this may still not give real life transistor models. And maybe these parameters were for internal company use only and the possibility for using them just remained inside the source code.
If you or anyone else can address these questions, please tell.
Gyula
Gyula,
Very informative post! I was not aware of the VBIC model levels available for bipolars. I am a member of the LtSpice forum and will see if I can question the members on obtaining any info on the use of VBIC as there are some really knowledgeable people there.
Regards,
Pm
Nelson, I've just learnt of your loved ones lose, pleas accept my deepest condolences at this uncertain time I sincerely wish you well.
AG
I am kind of stuck with this at the moment.
Nothing that i do seem to have any positive influence on the output current, it always stays at max. 10mA or so, not lightning up the output bulb.
A last resort would be to put the circuit on a PCB instead of a breadboard.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.06, 20:25:46
I am kind of stuck with this at the moment.
Nothing that i do seem to have any positive influence on the output current, it always stays at max. 10mA or so, not lightning up the output bulb.
A last resort would be to put the circuit on a PCB instead of a breadboard.
Itsu
Hello Itsu, what a pity that you still haven't made any progress in relation to the circuit. I wish I could help you more, but right now I don't have many ideas that I can help you move forward.
As I told you initially when we start debunking the circuit, I don't care if necessary, send the circuit by mail to you, so that you can analyze it personally, as you have tools that could help you better understand the circuit, and check the possibility of see any possible anomaly or even to be replicated .
I did not want to modify the original circuit, for fear of damaging something, in fact today I broke the terminals of the small lamp at the entrance :( when do some tests , but i confirm that even without the serial lamp on the (input), the circuit work normally, showing the same effect. I will try a resistor in series with the input to see some possible change on input , the resistor should not have the same fluctuation in resistance like the small bulb face to their linearity .
Is there a test that you want me to do in particular on the circuit? I could do just ask.
Thanks by your availability in this theme.
Hi Nelson,
Thanks for the offer to send the circuit to me for investigation, we can keep that in mind if needed.
Also good to know that without the input bulb, things are behaving the same.
Let me put the circuit i have now on a PCB to see if it makes any difference (stray capacitance).
I cannot think of any other test to do other then trying to loop it to see what is going to happen.
regards Itsu
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.06, 22:03:49
Hello Itsu, what a pity that you still haven't made any progress in relation to the circuit. I wish I could help you more, but right now I don't have many ideas that I can help you move forward.
As I told you initially when we start debunking the circuit, I don't care if necessary, send the circuit by mail to you, so that you can analyze it personally, as you have tools that could help you better understand the circuit, and check the possibility of see any possible anomaly or even to be replicated .
--> THIS IS AN AWESOME OFFER TO SPEED THE PROGRESS OF THIS NOTABLE DEVELOPMENT! THANK YOU, NELSON.
"I did not want to modify the original circuit, for fear of damaging something..
-->> EXCELLENT POINT, TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL CIRCUIT.
Is there a test that you want me to do in particular on the circuit? I could do just ask.
-->> ANOTHER GOOD IDEA, THANK YOU, NELSON.
Thanks by your availability in this theme.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2020.05.07, 10:30:56
PhysicsProf ,
Thanks I appreciate that you recognize my sincerity and delivery on this topic.
I really don't know yet if is a Notable Development like you say , but hope could be , because it will be another great reason to motivate and keep some hope in the enthusiast of this theme OU that I sincerely feel that they are unmotivated in last times .
Many thanks by your support
I have put the circuit on a PCB as close to what Nelson has.
I had to move the switch input signal to "outside" the E1 bulb, so direct on the input voltage as it kept on blowing to bulb during start (switch on).
With the fixed 2 base resistors (330 and 3.9K parallel, so 303 ohm) i could not get it to oscillate without shorting the output, so i replaced them with a 500 Ohm potmeter.
Now after some tuning i got it running both without shorting the output as with shorting the output.
But the signal levels do not match the ones shown by Nelson.
I have 500Vpp on the emitter unshorted (192Vpp shorted) and 450V dc out unloaded, so way higher voltages.
Also input current is double that of Nelson with 70mA @ 24V.
But the good news is that when shorting the output i have much more current then with the breadboard version and the input current drops when shorting like Nelson showed.
Its 37mA out when shorting at 38mA in (so input current halfs).
Anyway, i blew up my matching input bulb, so have to replace it tomorrow to see the difference in lights.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-orpEbEzWY&feature=youtu.be
Question; is the switch input really behind the E1 bulb like the diagram shows or is it directly on the input voltage?
Lateron i found out that when i lower he input voltage to 15V, the input current drops to 30mA and the unloaded output voltage is 240V.
When then shorting the output the input current drops to 22.1mA and the output goes to 22.4mA!
The potmeter value was set to 120 Ohm during the tests.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.10, 20:01:56
I have put the circuit on a PCB as close to what Nelson has.
I had to move the switch input signal to "outside" the E1 bulb, so direct on the input voltage as it kept on blowing to bulb during start (switch on).
With the fixed 2 base resistors (330 and 3.9K parallel, so 303 ohm) i could not get it to oscillate without shorting the output, so i replaced them with a 500 Ohm potmeter.
Now after some tuning i got it running both without shorting the output as with shorting the output.
But the signal levels do not match the ones shown by Nelson.
I have 500Vpp on the emitter unshorted (192Vpp shorted) and 450V dc out unloaded, so way higher voltages.
Also input current is double that of Nelson with 70mA @ 24V.
But the good news is that when shorting the output i have much more current then with the breadboard version and the input current drops when shorting like Nelson showed.
Its 37mA out when shorting at 38mA in (so input current halfs).
Anyway, i blew up my matching input bulb, so have to replace it tomorrow to see the difference in lights.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-orpEbEzWY&feature=youtu.be
Question; is the switch input really behind the E1 bulb like the diagram shows or is it directly on the input voltage?
Lateron i found out that when i lower he input voltage to 15V, the input current drops to 30mA and the unloaded output voltage is 240V.
When then shorting he output the input current drops to 22.1mA and the output goes to 22.4mA!
The potmeter value was set to 120 Ohm during the tests.
Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
Very thanks by your efforts that you put in this project .
I am happy, that somehow things start to make sense in the replication of the circuit and start to get more positive results.
I am sure that this result will further pique your curiosity and that should be a motivation to better results should be on the way.
About the switch:
The switch input is really behind the E1 bulb, In my case at this momment, not because of the absence of E1 that I broke in an unintended way :) . I'm really happy with your first result's !
I look forward to new developments;)!
Hi Itsu,
Very good progress and thanks for your arduous efforts too. I think if you try to 'fine tune' the 300 Ohm resistor in the base circuit then input current could be reduced and this would then involve a reduction in the unloaded output voltage too when the input voltage is still 24V.
Greetings
Gyula
To all readers here:
A few days ago I stumbled upon another circuit simulator, called Micro-Cap and the catch is that the owner of this software made it avalilable free of charge. :D
Note that this simulator used to cost USD 4495 till last November.
Here is the link to have more info: http://www.spectrum-soft.com/index.shtm and you can dowload the full software here:
http://www.spectrum-soft.com/download/download.shtm
The good news also is that this software includes more realistic transistor models than LTspice does, see this description:
http://www.spectrum-soft.com/demo.shtm
I used to use a 'cracked' version of Micro-Cap 3 roughly 30 years ago and the protection code was changed back then so I abandoned using it. I will have to get acquinted with this latest version (12) and see how it simulates this oscillator. It needs time of course.
If any of you wish to play with this software, just go ahead. IT is very rare a software developer and seller freely gives away his product, maybe he has gone to pension (they started this software in 1980!).
Regards
Gyula
Yesterday i showed that when the output was shorted, the input current and output current on the DMM's are similar (30mA).
The input bulb was not the same as the output bulb, so i could not show the visual difference.
Today i changed the input bulb to be a similar one as the output bulb and found that when shorting the output again, the output bulb got more brighter then the (dimmed) input bulb like Nelson showed in his video's.
The DMM's however showed still similar currents in this shorted situation (30mA), see end of the below video.
To rule out any ohmage difference between the 2 bulbs i put them in series and tested them to be the same, see begin of the below video.
Finaly the scope with current probe showed that the DMM's, at least the one on the output, can not handle the high frequency of the current signals and is way off.
But it also shows that during shorting situation, the input current is 30mA @ 20V and the output current 50mA rms.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vFv_SPGu20&feature=youtu.be
Question now is; can we exploit this somehow?
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.11, 19:58:01
Yesterday i showed that when the output was shorted, the input current and output current on the DMM's are similar (30mA).
The input bulb was not the same as the output bulb, so i could not show the visual difference.
Today i changed the input bulb to be a similar one as the output bulb and found that when shorting the output again, the output bulb got more brighter then the (dimmed) input bulb like Nelson showed in his video's.
The DMM's however showed still similar currents in this shorted situation (30mA), see end of the below video.
To rule out any ohmage difference between the 2 bulbs i put them in series and tested them to be the same, see begin of the below video.
Finaly the scope with current probe showed that the DMM's, at least the one on the output, can not handle the high frequency of the current signals and is way off.
But it also shows that during shorting situation, the input current is 30mA @ 20V and the output current 50mA rms.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vFv_SPGu20&feature=youtu.be
Question now is; can we exploit this somehow?
Itsu
Now there you are! I hope you feel rewarded for your persistence, and i thank you for you giving to my word's some credit.
I am very satisfied with your result, and in this way we have two circuits with practically the same behaviors, where we will be able to work and explore the possible potential of it. This should be considered a big little step, Itsu ☺
I think one of the advantages of this circuit is the fact that it does not use the signal generator to generate the signal to oscillation, which could motivate some doubts in persons about the possible introduction of an external source in the liability measurement process .
I really would like help improve and scale this small circuit with you, because i can :) , but you already know my lack of important equipments to help you At this moment, and by now seems we are a bit alone on this theme with my help and of Gyula . Who know now , some other guys get their hands to Work too ? :)
Thanks and have a good night !
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.11, 19:58:01
....
But it also shows that during shorting situation, the input current is 30mA @ 20V and the output current 50mA rms.
Question now is; can we exploit this somehow?
Hi Itsu,
Your achievent is amazing, thank you for persistence.
Tomorrow could you check the voltage across the output bulb when the black and red wires are shorted and the 50 mA RMS is flowing in the bulb?
Thanks and good night,
Gyula
Thanks Nelson, i am glad you are so excited like i am as its so amazing to me how you came up with this.
But lets do some quick input/output power calculations with my above data when in shorted situation (meaning we have the output bulb as a load):
Input power is 20V * 30mA = 0.6W
Output power is 2V * 50mA = 0.1W (for the 2V see this post/graph: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg81145#msg81145)
So efficiency would be 16.6%.
So there still must be a lot of improvement taking place before we are able to try a loopback.
Gyula, your update seen, see above. I will double check/measure tomorrow.
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Thanks for referring back to the earlier graph on the bulbs V-I characteristic.
Regarding efficiency: we know that no claim was made on "OU" so this is a secondary question now, I believe.
There are oscillators with measured 89 - 90% efficiencies (in some cases 92-93%) like Class-E oscillators, here is a link to such:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326616551_A_Self-Tuned_Class-E_Power_Oscillator (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326616551_A_Self-Tuned_Class-E_Power_Oscillator)
But let's stay with Nelson's interesting oscillator. Could you charge a 470 uF capacitor from the output and monitor input current during the charging process like Nelson showed in his video series?
Gyula
I'm so sorry for your loss Nelson. My heart goes out to you and your family.
Here i measured the input power and ouput power when in shorted situation (output bulb becomes the load).
First screenshot is the input power:
yellow: input voltage (20V rms)
green: input current (31mA rms)
red: input power (calculated by scope yellow x green: 506mW)
Second screenshot is the output power:
yellow: output voltage across the output bulb (2.2V rms)
green: output current (50mA rms)
red: output power (calculated by scope yellow x green: 111mW)
Itsu
Quote from: gyula on 2020.05.12, 09:06:54
Hi Itsu,
Thanks for referring back to the earlier graph on the bulbs V-I characteristic.
Regarding efficiency: we know that no claim was made on "OU" so this is a secondary question now, I believe.
There are oscillators with measured 89 - 90% efficiencies (in some cases 92-93%) like Class-E oscillators, here is a link to such:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326616551_A_Self-Tuned_Class-E_Power_Oscillator (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326616551_A_Self-Tuned_Class-E_Power_Oscillator)
But let's stay with Nelson's interesting oscillator. Could you charge a 470 uF capacitor from the output and monitor input current during the charging process like Nelson showed in his video series?
Gyula
the below screenshot is the input current in green when charging a 470uF cap from 0 to 200V
Time base is 4s/div, we start the circuit at 4s and it reached 200V about 29s later where i disconnected the cap.
I had to modify the base potmeter as in the earlier setting it would not oscillate with the 470uF cap attached.
will do some more tests tonight.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.12, 15:29:53
the below screenshot is the input current in green when charging a 470uF cap from 0 to 200V
Time base is 4s/div, we start the circuit at 4s and it reached 200V about 29s later where i disconnected the cap.
I had to modify the base potmeter as in the earlier setting it would not oscillate with the 470uF cap attached.
will do some more tests tonight.
Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
forgive me for the late reply, but since yesterday I went back to my job after several days of quarantine , and I only get home from 19:00, which makes it harder to follow your work on the circuit like i wish ☺ .
I already had the opportunity to see a summary of your tests, and frankly, the efficiency of the circuit is apparently disappointing, however, I would like to ask your opinion regarding the following:
Since the circuit apparently has a high impedance output, and with a relatively high voltage, when the small lamp is used as a load (shorted output) , given its low resistance, will be the most correct approach to correctly measure at the output?
I say that because when bulb is short is equivalent to have a low impedance load, and the bulb becomes connected in parallel offering a very low resistance in the output .
From what I could understand the output from the rectifier, it shows a high ripple voltage, and this ripple voltage is certainly non-sinusoidal AC with harmonic voltages
(In your last video is visible the frequencies merged in many frequencies values) , so the measurement of small values of the ripple will be inaccurate i think.
I don't know if you are following my reasoning, but this observation seems pertinent to me.
I would also like to mention the following test that I had the opportunity to do that can somehow validate my point.
I used an industrial reference relay
RM505730 (SCHRACK) ,which has a coil resistance of 7500 Ohm, and needs 2690 mW with minimal 184V to work;
To my amazement, the circuit powered with 21v and 20 milliamps, which is a mere 420mW, manages to operate in the output the relay without any type of limitation in their operation, which makes me think about the points I mentioned earlier regarding the circuit impedance.
I would like to hear your opinion on this topic.
Thanks in advance for your work;)
Quote from: JimBoot on 2020.05.12, 12:00:28
I'm so sorry for your loss Nelson. My heart goes out to you and your family.
Many thanks Jim , its life, and we need to learn to deal with the adversities .
Many thanks
Hi Nelson,
good to hear you are resuming your regular job, i guess its the best for everyone to go "back to normal" quickly if possible.
Concerning the first measurement results of your circuit, let me point out that those are some initial measurements.
I think the idea needs to be like you mention yourself that we have to do a series of tests to see if we can exploid this somehow.
Matching the ouput for optimum power transfer is key here.
Hopefully some interest is invoked and we can get more reactions and suggestions on how to maximize the effect seen.
One thing i did not expected to see was that ripply output voltage / current.
Perhaps the used bridge is not able to handle the frequency used.
regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.12, 15:29:53
the below screenshot is the input current in green when charging a 470uF cap from 0 to 200V
Time base is 4s/div, we start the circuit at 4s and it reached 200V about 29s later where i disconnected the cap.
I had to modify the base potmeter as in the earlier setting it would not oscillate with the 470uF cap attached.
will do some more tests tonight.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Thanks for doing the capacitor charge-up test. Just curious again: in the new base potmeter setting good for the cap charge, does it remain good for driving the bulb too? Or you had to reset the pot again?
When I earlier asked Nelson to load the output with resistors to halve his unloaded 203 VDC output, it was to get an impression on the approximate output impedance. If I recall, it was in the range of 20-25 kOhm? sorry I cannot recall more precisely. But it showed the output has a relatively high impedance which surely has to be matched.
The ripple voltage across the output may come via capacitor C7 (3.5 nF) which is in parallel with a diode of the diode bridge. Nelson surely had a reason to use that capacitor. 8) The ripple voltage can also come about due to the low value puffer capacitor, C6, 97.2 nF. No need for changing the diode bridge for fast switching diodes yet.
Nelson, it is very good you can carry on your job.
Greetings
Gyula
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.12, 19:27:42
Hi Nelson,
good to hear you are resuming your regular job, i guess its the best for everyone to go "back to normal" quickly if possible.
Concerning the first measurement results of your circuit, let me point out that those are some initial measurements.
I think the idea needs to be like you mention yourself that we have to do a series of tests to see if we can exploid this somehow.
Matching the ouput for optimum power transfer is key here.
Hopefully some interest is invoked and we can get more reactions and suggestions on how to maximize the effect seen.
One thing i did not expected to see was that ripply output voltage / current.
Perhaps the used bridge is not able to handle the frequency used.
regards Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
Yes, despite being a person that love being at home, the lack of routines is necessary to maintain mental and social balance,in that way I can say, that I am happy to be back at work.
Concerning the measurements you have right . But I'm curious about that frequencies oscillations :) that I saw in your shots , is really frustrating to me not able to track those points!:)
Well , seems not many people apparently interested in participate until now with exception to Gyula ; hope is not because my participation; I know I'm not so Popular :) by the eyes of some people in this Forum , but that should not be a reason to people not get involved is my opinion, I hope I'm wrong ...
Hope see more advances in next days Itsu , and I thank you by that .
Have a good night and thanks
Gyula,
the new potmeter setting is OK for driving the bulb, just the input currents and ouput voltage are different, like 54mA unloaded, and 33mA shorted, while the unloaded output went down from 450V to 350V.
Uploading another video right now showing the input current / ouput voltage during a timed charge of the 470uF cap again to 200V.
The output bulb barely lights up during charge of the cap.
Like to test out something with high impedance, but cannot come up with something i could use right now.
itsu
Here again the timed charging of the 470uF cap to 200V on video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGbp9WBPMQ&feature=youtu.be
I zoomed in in the dark on the start moment only here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw48IbNSJQQ&feature=youtu.be
Itsu
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.12, 18:36:53
....
I would also like to mention the following test that I had the opportunity to do that can somehow validate my point.
I used an industrial reference relay RM505730 (SCHRACK) ,which has a coil resistance of 7500 Ohm, and needs 2690 mW with minimal 184V to work;
To my amazement, the circuit powered with 21v and 20 milliamps, which is a mere 420mW, manages to operate in the output the relay without any type of limitation in their operation, which makes me think about the points I mentioned earlier regarding the circuit impedance.
....
Hi Nelson,
Regarding your test with that relay type, we need to focus on some details. Here is the data sheet https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/Tyco%20Electonics%20AMP%20PDFs/RM5,6.pdf (https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/Tyco%20Electonics%20AMP%20PDFs/RM5,6.pdf) for that relay.
Rated coil power at 50/60Hz for coil type 730 is 2.69 VA at 50 Hz and at 230 VAC rated voltage. The 184 V is the minimal operational AC voltage at 50 Hz. So the 2.69 VA power is valid for the coil DC resistance of 7500 Ohm in series with the coil L inductance which has an inductive reactance at 50 Hz and we do not know the phase angle between the current and the voltage.
All I mean is that more rigorous output power measurement is needed, you need to check the DC output voltage across the relay when you hook it up and also the DC current the relay coil draws from the output of the oscillator. Ripple voltage may also be present.
But you may as well abandon the relay test and use a normal known value resistor as the load and check the voltage across the resistor, then calculate the power. (provided the ripple voltage is negligible small, this would need a scope I know).
Greetings, and Good night,
Gyula
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.12, 20:37:13
Here again the timed charging of the 470uF cap to 200V on video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGbp9WBPMQ&feature=youtu.be
I zoomed in in the dark on the start moment only here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw48IbNSJQQ&feature=youtu.be
Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
Just by curiosity :
Why your multimeter in first video at minute 1:45 show a voltage of 349V ? Seem happens when you stop the oscillator .. Really strange ... Did you know what happen ?
https://youtu.be/FbGbp9WBPMQ?t=105
Many thanks by the videos :)
Have a good night
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.12, 20:19:53
Gyula,
the new potmeter setting is OK for driving the bulb, just the input currents and ouput voltage are different, like 54mA unloaded, and 33mA shorted, while the unloaded output went down from 450V to 350V.
Uploading another video right now showing the input current / ouput voltage during a timed charge of the 470uF cap again to 200V.
The output bulb barely lights up during charge of the cap.
Like to test out something with high impedance, but cannot come up with something i could use right now.
itsu
Okay Itsu, thank you for the tests.
The output bulb has the chance to come up with a faint brightness when the empty 470 uF cap starts charging, this is ok. As it charges, the current exponentially reduces via the bulb, giving less and less chance to give light.
The charging time and the 470 uF capacitor are in relation with the output resistance of the oscillator, RC time constant calculation helps to approach the resistance.
Must finish now, thanks for your time.
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.05.12, 20:45:58
Hi Nelson,
Regarding your test with that relay type, we need to focus on some details. Here is the data sheet https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/Tyco%20Electonics%20AMP%20PDFs/RM5,6.pdf (https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/Tyco%20Electonics%20AMP%20PDFs/RM5,6.pdf) for that relay.
Rated coil power at 50/60Hz for coil type 730 is 2.69 VA at 50 Hz and at 230 VAC rated voltage. The 184 V is the minimal operational AC voltage at 50 Hz. So the 2.69 VA power is valid for the coil DC resistance of 7500 Ohm in series with the coil L inductance which has an inductive reactance at 50 Hz and we do not know the phase angle between the current and the voltage.
All I mean is that more rigorous output power measurement is needed, you need to check the DC output voltage across the relay when you hook it up and also the DC current the relay coil draws from the output of the oscillator. Ripple voltage may also be present.
But you may as well abandon the relay test and use a normal known value resistor as the load and check the voltage across the resistor, then calculate the power. (provided the ripple voltage is negligible small, this would need a scope I know).
Greetings, and Good night,
Gyula
Hi Gyula ,
Yes you have right , I just use the example of relay because coil impedance theme and by their coil.
Maybe I will do that tests tomorrow like you suggest just by curiosity but only the voltage and current consumed by relay with my multimeter .
Many thanks Gyula Have a good night .
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.12, 21:01:47
Hi Itsu ,
Just by curiosity :
Why your multimeter in first video at minute 1:45 show a voltage of 349V ? Seem happens when you stop the oscillator .. Really strange ... Did you know what happen ?
https://youtu.be/FbGbp9WBPMQ?t=105
Many thanks by the videos :)
Have a good night
Nelson, well spotted, i have the DMM across the ouput leads, with the 470uF parallel to that.
At 200V i disconnect the 470uF / 200V cap, so then the DMM only measures the unloaded output leads voltage which directly jumps to its max. 350V with this base pot setting.
itsu
I used a range of resistors on the output as a load and noted down the input and output voltages, currents and power levels., see graph below.
Resistors used are 0, 1, 10, 100, 1K, 10K, 100K, 1M and 10M ohm.
For calculating the input power i used P=U*I using my current probe to measure the rms current and de Fluke 179 DMM for the voltage.
For calculating the ouput power i used P=U²/R using a voltage probe /scope to measure the rms voltage.
EDIT: i added an efficiency colum and graph and changed the load range into a logarithmic scale.
Also i measured the 470uF cap to be 431.8uF
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu,
By using this calculator here: https://www.digikey.com/en/resources/conversion-calculators/conversion-calculator-time-constant (https://www.digikey.com/en/resources/conversion-calculators/conversion-calculator-time-constant)
the 29-31 second charging time you measured for the 470 uF capacitor at 200 V gives a resistance range between 62 to 65 kOhm for the oscillator output impedance.
So the load resistance in that range looks like as optimum for the highest power output as per the measured charging time but is a little off for the latest in / out power results, but the difference is not that high at all and the output resistance can be nonlinear too.
This means the efficiency of your oscillator can be in the range between 50-60 %.
Thanks again for your efforts.
EDIT: the tolerance of the 470 uF electrolytic capacitor normally has a wide range so it may also cause or contribute to the difference.
Gyula
Gyula,
see some EDITs above, like the measured cap value (should make it worse).
I toke a look at the output voltage signal when loaded with a 1K load with and without C7 (4nF).
White is with C7,
yellow is without C7.
Shape and amplitude of the signals are almost identical, only the frequency differs (goes up without).
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Okay, thanks. It is unusual that C7 pulls the oscillator frequency down but with its capacitive reactance it seems to connect the 1 kOhm load 'heavier' into the oscillator by shunting the diode in the diode bridge.
This means now that the roughly 8 Vpp ripple voltage is present because the puffer capacitor 97 nF is too small for the 1 kOhm load but if you increase it, then the loading and pulling effect may also increase what both the 1 k load and the presence of C7 causes.
It is interesting that the highest efficiency comes at the 1 kOhm load this indicates a nonlinear, load dependent output resistance but this is eventually not surprising for an oscillator.
Greetings
Gyula
Thanks Gyula,
yes, it seems there is a nonlinear, load dependent output resistance which also causes the oscillator frequency to change.
Perhaps i can chart that frequency change and see if it might change any reactance which influences the load.
Itsu
I measured the oscillating frequency under severall load conditions and added that data and graph to the below picture.
C7 was included again.
Its not that of a dramatic change that could account for a heavy reactance influence imo.
itsu
Hi Itsu,
You measured a higher than 2 times change in frequency and IMHO this is quite a change. C.C ;)
Coils change their inductive reactances more than 2 times while capacitors reduce their capacitive reactances to less than half for such > 2 times frequency increase.
Anyway, many thanks for all your kind efforts!
Gyula
Gyula,
you are quite right when looking at it that way (2 times change).
But the difference from 12Khz to 17Khz where the major efficiency change occures is not that big.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.14, 19:16:30
I measured the oscillating frequency under severall load conditions and added that data and graph to the below picture.
C7 was included again.
Its not that of a dramatic change that could account for a heavy reactance influence imo.
itsu
Hi Itsu,
Hope you're well,
My apologies for not being so active these last few days, but I feel exhausted after the end of the day since i return to work and with 10 hours of work .... uffff ....
But What a beautiful job you did :) It is very interesting data that you share in relation to the circuit. I think, I have entertainment for the weekend to analyze this data :) .
In my perspective after a superficial analysis of the data you shared, the coil L2 / L3 is equivalent to 1:1 winding, and seems the inductance value of coil L2 change with relation to the load resistance value connected in the output of the L3 coil, causing the tank voltage in C4 increase or decrease depending on the resistive value of the load making the bias in base of Transistor being regulated by this action, make frequencies change . Just a superficial opinion :) .
Did you verify if the base of transistor have present negative values when the circuit has a load connected ? It will interest know that .
I will try in weekend make some experiments with my circuit; since you have now 1 operational circuit I think I could test more freely in mine .
Many thanks , by all your efforts , I really appreciate yours and Gyula, collaboration.
Have a good night Itsu and Gyula
Hi Nelson,
Yes, L2 / L3 is a 1:1 turns ratio transformer so the inductive reactance of the 13 mH coils reduces below 1 kOhm from the 2.2 kOhm (that manifests at 27 kHz) when the 1 kOhm load resistance is connected across the so far unloaded output. This change then certainly affects the whole circuit operation.
I wish you and also Itsu good night too. O0
Gyula
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.14, 20:14:15
Hi Itsu,
Hope you're well,
My apologies for not being so active these last few days, but I feel exhausted after the end of the day since i return to work and with 10 hours of work .... uffff ....
But What a beautiful job you did :) It is very interesting data that you share in relation to the circuit. I think, I have entertainment for the weekend to analyze this data :) .
In my perspective after a superficial analysis of the data you shared, the coil L2 / L3 is equivalent to 1:1 winding, and seems the inductance value of coil L2 change with relation to the load resistance value connected in the output of the L3 coil, causing the tank voltage in C4 increase or decrease depending on the resistive value of the load making the bias in base of Transistor being regulated by this action, make frequencies change . Just a superficial opinion :) .
Did you verify if the base of transistor have present negative values when the circuit has a load connected ? It will interest know that .
I will try in weekend make some experiments with my circuit; since you have now 1 operational circuit I think I could test more freely in mine .
Many thanks , by all your efforts , I really appreciate yours and Gyula, collaboration.
Have a good night Itsu and Gyula
Hi Nelson,
I am fine thanks. No problem with your activity, i still remember how it was when worked 10 hours ;)
I can make some measurements on the base during loading off course, will that be compared to ground or to emitter or?
The base signal compared to ground looks very much like the blue base signal shown in the bottom screenshot here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg80986#msg80986
have a good night both.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.14, 20:39:11
Hi Nelson,
I am fine thanks. No problem with your activity, i still remember how it was when worked 10 hours ;)
I can make some measurements on the base during loading off course, will that be compared to ground or to emitter or?
The base signal compared to ground looks very much like the blue base signal shown in the bottom screenshot here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg80986#msg80986
Have a good night both.
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
Thanks by your availability to make such measures .
It will interest measure transistor base relative to D1/D2 Cathode with and without load , to see the type of fluctuation and if becomes negative during process of load in the output.
Many thanks Itsu .
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.11, 19:58:01
Finaly the scope with current probe showed that the DMM's, at least the one on the output, can not handle the high frequency of the current signals and is way off.
It is usual for DMM's error to increase with the crest-factor and with frequency.
Incandescent bulbs are very trustworthy as output power meters of the DUT because there they act as BOTH average current indicators AND the load.
Incandescent bulbs are NOT trustworthy as input power meters of the DUT because there they act ONLY as average current indicators.
Stepping up the output current at the expense of input voltage is not unusual. It is what transformers do every day.
However, if the output current does not increase at the expense of the instantaneous product of the input voltage with input current, then it is an anomaly. As usual, it is important not to multiply the average input current by the average input voltage to obtain the average input power, because multiplying averages disregards their relationship in time.
I
AVG * V
AVG == P
AWG is true only for DC.
verpies,
QuoteIncandescent bulbs are very trustworthy as output power meters of the DUT because there they act as BOTH average current indicators AND the load.
Incandescent bulbs are NOT trustworthy as input power meters of the DUT because there they act ONLY as average current indicators.
I think that very well could be the cause of the effect seen by Nelson his circuit.
QuoteHowever, if the output current does not increase at the expense of the instantaneous product of the input voltage with input current, then it is an anomaly.
So thinking about that i will calculate the output current via Iout = √ (Pout / R).
The "instantaneous product of the input voltage with input current" (Pin) i already have, so plotting this will show an anomaly if there is one?
I will do that tonight.
Itsu
When i plot Iout versus Pin at certain loads i get the below data and graph.
Guess that downward line does not look promising.
Itsu
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.14, 21:22:04
Hi Itsu ,
Thanks by your availability to make such measures .
It will interest measure transistor base relative to D1/D2 Cathode with and without load , to see the type of fluctuation and if becomes negative during process of load in the output.
Many thanks Itsu .
Nelson,
Screenshot 1 shows the signal across base to cathode diodes with no ouput load (open).
Screenshot 2 shows the same signal with a 1K output load
Screenshot 3 shows the same signal with a shorted output (0 ohm load).
itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2020.05.15, 11:47:37
It is usual for DMM's error to increase with the crest-factor and with frequency.
Incandescent bulbs are very trustworthy as output power meters of the DUT because there they act as BOTH average current indicators AND the load.
Incandescent bulbs are NOT trustworthy as input power meters of the DUT because there they act ONLY as average current indicators.
Stepping up the output current at the expense of input voltage is not unusual. It is what transformers do every day.
However, if the output current does not increase at the expense of the instantaneous product of the input voltage with input current, then it is an anomaly. As usual, it is important not to multiply the average input current by the average input voltage to obtain the average input power, because multiplying averages disregards their relationship in time.
IAVG * VAVG == PAWG is true only for DC.
Hi Verpies,
Thank about your feedback .
I know bulbs are very trustworthy to validate current output , This was the main reason for i placing the lamp in series at the output of circuit , in order to have an easier visual perception of the current in the load by lack of equipment to measure , But I didn't know, lamps, were not reliable reference when used the input showing because only show average current indicators, but we are all time learning; Thanks for the tip, because that aspect had never occurred to me sincerely .
Does this apply because the Non Linear Resistance of the bulb?
Verpies could this circuit be considered a current step down being the small cmc isolator transformer wired in 1:1 ? maybe You could show other side that is escape me , because normally is winding ratio that could define a step up or step down like happen in a normal operation transformer .
I will appreciate your answer if could contribute to improve my knowledge .
I really appreciate your opinion , many thanks .
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.15, 16:34:45
Nelson,
Screenshot 1 shows the signal across base to cathode diodes with no ouput load (open).
Screenshot 2 shows the same signal with a 1K output load
Screenshot 3 shows the same signal with a shorted output (0 ohm load).
itsu
Hi Itsu ,
Many thanks by the shots .
Seems a negative voltage signal exist when the circuit run in idle mode (without load) , and when the circuit has a load the voltage increase to a more positive value, I'm understand right ? Or am I misinterpreting the scope shots?
I remember when I did some measurements to Gyula , have the idea about that negative values, but not at this level :) If these negative values are confirmed, would it be interesting to consider the possible power factor coefficient calculation?
Just a thought.
Many thanks Itsu , need to think about that points and try made some tests this weekend :) .
PS- I forget to say that merged frequencies seems very curious too ! :)
Hi Nelson,
yes, it seems there is a negative pulsing signal on the base compared to the diodes junction which changes towards less negative during loading.
Not sure what you mean by:
"If these negative values are confirmed, would it be interesting to consider the possible power factor coefficient calculation?"
I agree about the signal shape, looks curious.
The setting of the base resistor (a 500 ohm potmeter in my case) influences this shape considerable, as it does with the whole operation of this circuit.
I did some Pin measurements yesterday again now using my scope/math and i had quite a different outcome as before using a different base resistor setting.
So it might be there is a specific base resistance setting that increases the efficiency.
A needle in a haystack challenge.
Itsu
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.15, 20:56:42
Hi Itsu ,
Many thanks by the shots .
Seems a negative voltage signal exist when the circuit run in idle mode (without load) , and when the circuit has a load the voltage increase to a more positive value, I'm understand right ? Or am I misinterpreting the scope shots?
I remember when I did some measurements to Gyula , have the idea about that negative values, but not at this level :) If these negative values are confirmed, would it be interesting to consider the possible power factor coefficient calculation?
Just a thought.
Many thanks Itsu , need to think about that points and try made some tests this weekend :) .
PS- I forget to say that merged frequencies seems very curious too ! :)
Good morning Itsu, Many thanks by your answer.
What I wanted to say is if the source of this negative pulsating signal can be related to a reactive nature state of the circuit when there is no load present at the output.
It would be interesting to put a block diode at input to prevent possible returns from possible reactive to main power source, as on different occasions it seemed to me that there was some kind of return to the input source visible on the displays of my power supply just a thought .
Today i will Lift an oscilloscope I bought used, at market auction.
It is an OWON HDS2062M-N a portable oscilloscope, but I couldn't resist the price 75 € :) it was stronger than me ..... I hope that all of their functions are 100% operational, because even that small money these days makes a difference to me.
Apparently from the photos and the feedback of seller it seemed to be in good condition, moreover during my participation in the project in Germany, I had identical equipment available, and despite being limited in some Math functions it is better than having nothing :) and for sure will help me . I'm flea! :)
I'll give you feedback later about the equipment .
I wish you a great day
Nelson,
ok about the "possible returns from possible reactive to main power source", i will check on that during my Pin measurements as it should be shown on the scope (negative Pin).
Good for the scope, my first scope was/is an OWON PDS8202 which i still have.
Nice piece of equipment, which worked fine, only had the rotary switches noise which caused the vertical and horizontal settings jump all over the place after a few years.
Had to add some 100nF caps across them to keep it stable.
i am sure you enjoy this one.
regards Itsu
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.16, 12:08:02
Good morning Itsu, Many thanks by your answer.
What I wanted to say is if the source of this negative pulsating signal can be related to a reactive nature state of the circuit when there is no load present at the output.
It would be interesting to put a block diode at input to prevent possible returns from possible reactive to main power source, as on different occasions it seemed to me that there was some kind of return to the input source visible on the displays of my power supply just a thought .
Today i will Lift an oscilloscope I bought used, at market auction.
It is an OWON HDS2062M-N a portable oscilloscope, but I couldn't resist the price 75 € :) it was stronger than me ..... I hope that all of their functions are 100% operational, because even that small money these days makes a difference to me.
Apparently from the photos and the feedback of seller it seemed to be in good condition, moreover during my participation in the project in Germany, I had identical equipment available, and despite being limited in some Math functions it is better than having nothing :) and for sure will help me . I'm flea! :)
I'll give you feedback later about the equipment .
I wish you a great day
Hi Itsu ,
I already have the Owon Scope ,and he is in very good condition :) Seems is a reconditioned unit . I already make some validations and seems working fine .
Only the probes seem a little more worn, but apparently they are functional. Now need to read the manual :D .
By the price of 75€ in think is a really nice unit , even for experiments abroad.
Some shots of the unit ;)
Looking good indeed Nelson, nice case, all stuff together there O0
I recognize the emitter signal in the middle picture.
congrats, Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.16, 18:34:21
Looking good indeed Nelson, nice case, all stuff together there O0
I recognize the emitter signal in the middle picture.
congrats, Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
Yes is a shot of emitter signal in circuit :) good eye shot !
I need to explore the basic operation and math functions , but in general I am happy that I can explore the circuit a little more :) with this oscilloscope .
Wish you a good end of day Itsu .
I redid the input / output power measurements at different base resistor settings, but the outcome is that the efficiency stays at a max. of around 56% mostly in the 1K load area.
When i sweep/load the output with a 1M potmeter in series with a 100 Ohm resistor, no anomalies (negative input current / input power) are seen.
There is however a point around 72K where some sort of wild oscillations occure looking a the scope signals and the input bulb.
I will zoom in on that area later his weekend.
good evening all, regards Itsu
Hi Nelson,
Your oscilloscope is a nice catch, looks to be in good shape and hopefully the built-in Li-ion battery will serve you for a long time too. The 60 MHz bandwidth is also wide enough for most such pulsed circuits like this oscillator. 8)
Good night to you and all.
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.05.16, 21:34:04
Hi Nelson,
Your oscilloscope is a nice catch, looks to be in good shape and hopefully the built-in Li-ion battery will serve you for a long time too. The 60 MHz bandwidth is also wide enough for most such pulsed circuits like this oscillator. 8)
Good night to you and all.
Gyula
Hi Gyula ,
I think it was a good buy, and is in very good condition, but battery condition I really don't know, only the next days will tell me if battery is in good condition.
The battery takes some time to fully charge, just over 3 hours, let's see what happens, but in general is a good tool piece even to help me sometimes in repair services in CNC controllers and to help find fault encoders :) .
Gyula and all have a nice Weekend !
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.15, 20:39:19
Does this apply because the Non Linear Resistance of the bulb?
No, it is because the voltage is also a factor in input power calculation. (next to the current), but when you connect an incandescent bulb as the SOLE load of the DUT, then the voltage stops to matter because the power becomes the function of only current flowing through it, according to P=i
2R. This is all because a sole bulb is an output current indicator and the load in one package.
However, if you had a SEPARATE load connected in addition to the bulb, then the problem would reappear (just like at the input side) and the calculation P=i
2R would not hold anymore. You'd have to multiply the output voltage by output current to get the output power.
...and since it is NOT true that the average of products is equal to the product of averages, you cannot just multiply an average voltage times average current to obtain the average power. Such operation loses the temporal relationship between the voltage and current and yields an invalid answer (except for DC). Unfortunately DMMs measure the mean (or RMS) voltage & currents and can't deal accurately with high frequencies and crest factors.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.16, 20:30:09
I redid the input / output power measurements at different base resistor settings, but the outcome is that the efficiency stays at a max. of around 56% mostly in the 1K load area.
When i sweep/load the output with a 1M potmeter in series with a 100 Ohm resistor, no anomalies (negative input current / input power) are seen.
There is however a point around 72K where some sort of wild oscillations occure looking a the scope signals and the input bulb.
I will zoom in on that area later his weekend.
good evening all, regards Itsu
I zoomed in on his 72KhHz area by using a 100K potmeter as a load.
Now no wild oscillations are noticed, so i think the wild oscillations seen with the 1M potmeter were some kind of artifacts caused by a rapid load change with this potmeter.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2020.05.17, 23:43:35
No, it is because the voltage is also a factor in input power calculation. (next to the current), but when you connect an incandescent bulb as the SOLE load of the DUT, then the voltage stops to matter because the power becomes the function of only current flowing through it, according to P=i2R. This is all because a sole bulb is an output current indicator and the load in one package.
However, if you had a SEPARATE load connected in addition to the bulb, then the problem would reappear (just like at the input side) and the calculation P=i2R would not hold anymore. You'd have to multiply the output voltage by output current to get the output power.
...and since it is NOT true that the average of products is equal to the product of averages, you cannot just multiply an average voltage times average current to obtain the average power. Such operation loses the temporal relationship between the voltage and current and yields an invalid answer (except for DC). Unfortunately DMMs measure the mean (or RMS) voltage & currents and can't deal accurately with high frequencies and crest factors.
Hi Verpies many thanks by your answer.
After reading your answer, and analyzing it in depth, it seems logical and assertive to your reasoning. This quote of yours was the key to I'm understanding the logic of your reasoning.
"and since it is NOT true that the average of products is equal to the product of averages,"I will remove the small bulbs on input and output , seems better :) to analyze the circuit in a more assertive way.
I would be grateful if you could also give your personal opinion on the other question I ask you .
Verpies could this circuit be considered a current step down being the small cmc isolator transformer wired in 1:1 ? maybe You could show other side that is escape me , because normally is winding ratio that could define a step up or step down like happen in a normal operation transformer .Many thanks
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.18, 09:09:00
I zoomed in on his 72KhHz area by using a 100K potmeter as a load.
Now no wild oscillations are noticed, so i think the wild oscillations seen with the 1M potmeter were some kind of artifacts caused by a rapid load change with this potmeter.
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
did you mean that merged oscillations disappeared ? Or the ripple at output disappeared ?
Many thanks
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.16, 20:30:09
I redid the input / output power measurements at different base resistor settings, but the outcome is that the efficiency stays at a max. of around 56% mostly in the 1K load area.
When i sweep/load the output with a 1M potmeter in series with a 100 Ohm resistor, no anomalies (negative input current / input power) are seen.
There is however a point around 72K where some sort of wild oscillations occure looking a the scope signals and the input bulb.
I will zoom in on that area later his weekend.
good evening all, regards Itsu
Hi Nelson,
what i mean is that the above mentioned wild oscillations seen when i sweep/load the output with a 1M potmeter in series with a 100 Ohm resistor are there not anymore
when i sweep/load the output with a 100K potmeter (zoomed in).
The merged oscillations, as you call them, are still there as is the ripple at the ouput.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.18, 15:20:03
Hi Nelson,
what i mean is that the above mentioned wild oscillations seen when i sweep/load the output with a 1M potmeter in series with a 100 Ohm resistor are there not anymore
when i sweep/load the output with a 100K potmeter (zoomed in).
The merged oscillations, as you call them, are still there as is the ripple at the ouput.
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu hope you goes well ,
Now i understand your answer :) I already asked Verpies this question, but I would like to know your opinion.
Can this circuit be considered a step down buck converter , with L2 / L3 being a 1: 1 transformer?
Many thanks Itsu
Hi Nelson,
doing well, thanks.
This circuit "acts" more like a step up boost converter to me giving it steps up the 24V input voltage to 450V (my replication).
How this one works exactly hopefully can be explained by others, but in general, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.18, 11:45:16
Verpies could this circuit be considered a current step down being the small cmc isolator transformer wired in 1:1
I will not answer this question because two windings on the same core act as a transformer only when the inducing and induced currents flow through them
at the same time.
Is that happening in your circuit?
It does happen in my replication:
green is the current, using my current probe, throught L2,
yellow is the voltage across a 1 Ohm 1% induction free csr in the L3 to bridge lead.
Output load was a 1K resistor, current probe was deskewed for 14KHz.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.20, 19:40:15
green is the current, using my current probe, throught L2,
What is that HF burst on the falling edge, before the negative peak, in the 2nd time division? Do your sims show it, too?
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.20, 19:40:15
yellow is the voltage across a 1 Ohm 1% induction free csr in the L3 to bridge lead.
Doesn't that current go slightly negative in the 3rd time division? The green one does not do that...
Quote from: verpies on 2020.05.20, 20:22:59
What is that HF burst on the falling edge, before the negative peak, in the 2nd time division? Do your sims show it, too?
Doesn't that current go slightly negative in the 3rd time division? The green one does not do that...
no, the sim does not show the HF burst, but the sim has more things that don't mach, its over the whole much more cleaner in signals, see screenshot.
Hmmm, the yellow current in he 3th division is more straight (following the zero line), the green current goes below its zero line there (negative).
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.20, 07:02:07
Hi Nelson,
doing well, thanks.
This circuit "acts" more like a step up boost converter to me giving it steps up the 24V input voltage to 450V (my replication).
How this one works exactly hopefully can be explained by others, but in general, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter.
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
I'm not totally full agree with you about the circuit acting like step up boost converter, only .. :)
In some of the measurements you already did , we see an increase in current output vs input , but i understand your logic to consider the circuit like a booster , because when output is unload , show a much higher voltage then the input (450v) , but it is true when you connect a low impedance load at output the current increase and voltage lower. Buck or boost converter ? :)
At 24V on the input , the C4 and C5 capacitor have a variation , with a high peak of current and voltage , and that should the reason to be induced in L2/L3 CMC the high voltage in output , even being wired in a 1:1 ratio .
The configuration of L2/L3 not allow a step up or step down like a conventional transformer.
Well , I think we have some aspects yet to understand .
Many thanks Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.20, 07:02:07
Hi Nelson,
doing well, thanks.
This circuit "acts" more like a step up boost converter to me giving it steps up the 24V input voltage to 450V (my replication).
How this one works exactly hopefully can be explained by others, but in general, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter.
Regards Itsu
Hi Verpies ,
I will you answer later based in the updates brought by Itsu.
Many thanks
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.20, 22:06:54
Hi Itsu ,
I'm not totally full agree with you about the circuit acting like step up boost converter, only .. :)
In some of the measurements you already did , we see an increase in current output vs input , but i understand your logic to consider the circuit like a booster , because when output is unload , show a much higher voltage then the input (450v) , but it is true when you connect a low impedance load at output the current increase and voltage lower. Buck or boost converter ? :)
At 24V on the input , the C4 and C5 capacitor have a variation , with a high peak of current and voltage , and that should the reason to be induced in L2/L3 CMC the high voltage in output , even being wired in a 1:1 ratio .
The configuration of L2/L3 not allow a step up or step down like a conventional transformer.
Well , I think we have some aspects yet to understand .
Many thanks Itsu
Nelson,
voltage boost or buck, current boost or buck, it indeed depends how you look at it.
Below graps show the relation between input versus ouput voltage and input versus ouput current.
The values do cross, but in the end what matters is the Power in versus out, which do no cross.
regards Itsu
Quote from: nelsonrochaa on 2020.05.20, 22:28:34
I will you answer later based in the updates brought by Itsu.
I really would rather lurk now
Here a zoomed in (1 cycle) screenshot of the currents through T1 (L2 green and L3 yellow).
Yellow (L3) NOT inverted now.
The HF bursts are 2.2MHz.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.21, 19:03:58
Nelson,
voltage boost or buck, current boost or buck, it indeed depends how you look at it.
Below graps show the relation between input versus ouput voltage and input versus ouput current.
The values do cross, but in the end what matters is the Power in versus out, which do no cross.
regards Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
I understand your point of view when you say that what matters is the Power in vs out .
Thanks by your opinion.
Quote from: verpies on 2020.05.21, 19:05:18
I really would rather lurk now
Hi Verpies ,
I just told you that i would answer later, because of your question, regarding if inducing and induced currents flow through SMC at the same time, and I only saw Itsu's reply later, confirming this point, with their scope shots .
But thanks anyway.
Itsu,
I see you are using your new MDO3034 scope! How do you like it?
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.21, 19:56:26
The HF bursts are 2.2MHz.
Could the step recovery of a diode be responsible for this?
Quote from: partzman on 2020.05.21, 20:30:59
Itsu,
I see you are using your new MDO3034 scope! How do you like it?
Regards,
Pm
Hi Partzman, well noticed, yes, using the MDO3054 now mostly, its a very nice piece of equipment.
I like the pushbuttons to quickly center the signals and all the build in / on board goodies like the pre settings for my AM503B / A6302 current probe (deskew).
Still working my way around all the settings, but really love it.
Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2020.05.21, 23:33:04
Could the step recovery of a diode be responsible for this?
verpies,
i would have thought that those modern UF4007 (2) would have a small distinct PN junction which would not allow or minimize these sharp pulses caused by it.
Perhaps i can swap them for some KD206D diodes which are known for their fuzzy PN junction and see if those HF pulses increase.
Itsu
Hi Nelson,
what are your feelings about your circuit?
Do you feel we did enough to analyze it, or do you think there needs to be done more to understand it?
Unfortunately i can not further help you in understanding how it does what it does.
I have tried to give as much details on the tests i did on my replication and gave the results as clear as i could in data and graphs.
If there is anything you can come up with which we can test, please tell me so i can give it a try.
Do you have any other intriging circuits you want to share with us so we can replicate and test it?
My favourite to replicate would be your "amazing oscilator" which i still have the video of, the one you start with a piezo lighter and carry around through your house.
Take care, regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.25, 08:38:22
Hi Nelson,
what are your feelings about your circuit?
Do you feel we did enough to analyze it, or do you think there needs to be done more to understand it?
Unfortunately i can not further help you in understanding how it does what it does.
I have tried to give as much details on the tests i did on my replication and gave the results as clear as i could in data and graphs.
If there is anything you can come up with which we can test, please tell me so i can give it a try.
Do you have any other intriging circuits you want to share with us so we can replicate and test it?
My favourite to replicate would be your "amazing oscilator" which i still have the video of, the one you start with a piezo lighter and carry around through your house.
Take care, regards Itsu
Hi Itsu,
At this moment, despite all the tests that have been conducted, it is not completely clear to me about some points that were observed, however I get the impression, that this feeling is partly reciprocal, at least I got this idea.
As you mentioned that you can't help anymore understanding how it does what it does, I am still very grateful for your collaboration and by Gyula, sincerely , but I will continue to try to understand some less clear points for me, such as the negative variations of voltage and current verified, as well another aspect regarding the fact that the transformer is 1:1 and exhibits a deviated behavior, of the Mutual induction process, exhibited by a common transformer.
About "amazing oscillator" I sold the rights off this small circuit, a few years ago to a South Korean company, which earned me a small sum of money that today I would not have sold, at least for the amount I sold at that time.
I have no way of knowing, accurate information, and circuit details since I was hacked, most of the information in my netbook like circuits videos , thoughts and diagrams was stolen and deleted, even on social channels like youtube.
Could you provide me with that same video to integrate into my library?
I would be very grateful for that.
I have been trying to recover some of the videos I missed, because, in some way, they are a "consolation" for all the real circuits that were "confiscated" from me.
I'm starting a new topic on the OU related to one of my old circuits with pancake coils, I would be delighted, that whenever you wanted to give your opinion or even participate when you have time and availability .
once again, thank you very much for your help and participation in this circuit, as well as Gyula's help.
Nelson,
i also am unclear about what i see at certain points in this circuit, but i lack the knowledge to explain them, so yes that feeling you have is reciprocal.
Concerning the "amazing oscillator", thanks for the info.
I can send you that video, no problem, just give a valid Email address using mine (see my profile here).
Hopefully the 14.4MB is not to much to send via Email.
I will be following your new topic and participate if possible.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.25, 15:41:10
Nelson,
i also am unclear about what i see at certain points in this circuit, but i lack the knowledge to explain them, so yes that feeling you have is reciprocal.
Concerning the "amazing oscillator", thanks for the info.
I can send you that video, no problem, just give a valid Email address using mine (see my profile here).
Hopefully the 14.4MB is not to much to send via Email.
I will be following your new topic and participate if possible.
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu,
As I told you earlier, I am grateful for everything you have done.
I just want to leave this video to understand what I was referring to a few posts ago about apparent feedback for the power supply.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZMpr9ngb8wTNRpya8 (https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZMpr9ngb8wTNRpya8)
I will send you my email, if it is not possible I will try to find an alternative, like sharing a space on Gdrive where you can place the video.
Hi Nelson,
i managed to send out the video via my Email, so you should have it by now.
Concerning your new above video, it made me smile as i wonder how on earth you come up with such things to try. :)
You must have a very curious mind to try out all these things. O0
I can try to replicate, and probably will get similar results, but to explain them in details i can not.
But generally i think it will boil down to the fact that you have an oscillator / transmitter that will send out a strong 17KHz signal which will influence all surrounded wirings and even goes into your PSU.
That PSU seems to be a dual PS one which probably internally is hooked up to each other so you can put the outputs in series or parallel etc.
With other words, the 17KHz RF will penetrate it and influences the internals to give (false) readings.
Also the output led bulb will light due to these 17Khz RF signals i am sure.
You might want to filter more strongly your primary power source by a CMC and some caps (electrolytic and ceramics) to see if these internal interactions go away.
I will do some replications and see if my dual PSU shows the same.
Regards Itsu
Hi Nelson,
I agree with Itsu. The AC output of the oscillator goes back to the PSU when you connect the LED or the wire back to the positive supply input. Even if the L2/L3 coils as a 1:1 transformer isolates the output from the input, their stray inductance-capacitance may let some energy through.
You could check this by your oscilloscope which fortunately can operate from its battery i.e. ground independent. Connect the scope probe croco gnd clip to the negative input supply rail and the tip of the probe to the positive input supply rail and see whether any 17 kHz or so AC signal appears or not across the rails when you loop back the AC output to the positive rail.
Most likely you will see the AC component appearing across the rails. When you connected the AC output behind the series input diode and you still had the "problem", it is possible the diode remained forward biased from the supply input (i.e. the AC component had not enough current to influence its forward conduction).
One more thing: what if you reduce the 0.3 V DC setting on your PSU's 2nd output to zero? will the near 1 A "load" current also manifest?
Gyula
I did some similar tests as Nelson did but was unable to light up a similar led bulb (3.6W 240V).
But the feedback lead from positive L3 to the plus input lead (diodes in place) showed we got some extra input current (using the current probe) signals generated on this plus input lead.
It caused my PS display to show 1V less (from 17V to 16V) and its current display dropped from 30mA to 20mA
Also the current DMM in the input lead dropped from 30mA to 17mA, but the scope current probe showed an increase in rms current from 30mA to 45mA.
I tend to believe the scope to give the accurate current readings and not the DMM or PS display.
My second PS (set to 0.3V) did not change or got influenced by this feedback signal.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ReXhKLRoHo&feature=youtu.be
So yes there is RF feedback into the PS which influences the PS displays and DMM.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.26, 08:45:26
Hi Nelson,
i managed to send out the video via my Email, so you should have it by now.
Concerning your new above video, it made me smile as i wonder how on earth you come up with such things to try. :)
You must have a very curious mind to try out all these things. O0
I can try to replicate, and probably will get similar results, but to explain them in details i can not.
But generally i think it will boil down to the fact that you have an oscillator / transmitter that will send out a strong 17KHz signal which will influence all surrounded wirings and even goes into your PSU.
That PSU seems to be a dual PS one which probably internally is hooked up to each other so you can put the outputs in series or parallel etc.
With other words, the 17KHz RF will penetrate it and influences the internals to give (false) readings.
Also the output led bulb will light due to these 17Khz RF signals i am sure.
You might want to filter more strongly your primary power source by a CMC and some caps (electrolytic and ceramics) to see if these internal interactions go away.
I will do some replications and see if my dual PSU shows the same.
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
Thank you, I consider it a compliment :)
Sometimes in the irrationality of our mind, it can lead us to the strangest things you can imagine.
As soon as I have the opportunity, I will follow your advice and that of Gyula, I will try to test with your suggestions.
Many thanks
Hi Nelson,
take your time, i know you are a busy familyman and now especially with your thread on OU.com.
I have updated my above post with a video of my tests showing the RF feedback into my PS.
You can see there is negative current (going into the PS).
Not sure the scope rms value is correct (45mA) or the current DMM and PS current meter (17mA), but it think the scope, comments anyone please!
The video is a little chaotic at times, sorry for that.
Regards Itsu
Hi Nelson,
I have to make a small correction to my previous mail. I considered that it was the AC output what you connected back to the positive input rail but watching your video again it is clear you connected the positive DC output of the diode bridge to the positive input rail.
Only the scope probe was hooked up to the AC input of the diode bridge.
Even so, all the rest of my comments I wrote are still valid.
The (nearly) 100 nF puffer cap which must be the yellow colored, rectangular capacitor under the diode bridge) can only filter the rectified DC coming from the diode bridge to a certain degree, so there should remain AC components superposed onto the DC voltage level, depending on the load.
I suggest to check the waveform across the DC output too by the scope, both when only the LED bulb is the load and also when you connect the positive output back to the positive input rail directly by the lead wire (red croco).
At video time 6:45 you activated the 12V incandescent bulb across the output while the positive DC output was directly connected back to the positive input rail and the 1 A current displayed on the power supply disappeared.
I think this clearly means the AC component across the DC output of the oscillator has diminished to a low value, not enough to cause the "problem" (the scope measured only 64V pp across L3, instead of the 250V pp or so without the loading effect of the 12V bulb).
Greetings
Gyula
Hi Itsu,
IF you use the Fluke meter for measuring the input current instead of the M890G meter, would the 17 mA displayed current on it change?
I suspect that when you connect the output back to the DC input (either behind or in front of the diode), the input current waveform changes so much that the M890G DMM and also the internal meter of the PS displays a different value.
We may trust better in the scope current probe I think.
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
i quickly used my old Fluke 8060A true RMS DMM instead, and it showed the same behaviour as with the cheapo M890G DMM.
But when using the newer Fluke 179 true RMS DMM, i get NO change in the current AND no change in the PS voltage or current readings! (no change means a few tenth of mA's, like 29.4 without and 29.7 with).
It seems the newer Fluke filters out the RF going into the PS.
I will take some scope measurements tonight to see how this Fluke meter influences the RF feedback.
Thanks, Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Oscillators tend to behave sensitively to a changing internal resistance or impedance of the power supply feeding them. And ampermeters in series with a supply rail increases that resistance or impedance. This is why many oscillators are run from a dedicated on-board voltage regulator built close to it, whose output resistance or impedance can be more constant.
The same can be valid for a series resistance used for current sensing in one of the supply rails, when inserted, the oscillator may change its behaviour.
Thanks for these efforts.
Gyula
That is also what I've noticed, concerning connecting up a meter or a scope to this type of sensitive circuits, to test for voltage or current.
Which brings us back to obtaining self running, first. Then see if there is any chance of testing for values, second.
What I and others have done is to not use the negative probe on the scope. That may make the signals look a bit strange, but then they will be off if the ground is connected, also. I know that itsu is aware of that. I'm just restating it, in my own way. So, why not test for self running?
You never know. But it seems like a lot of voltage at the output, perhaps a proper feed back path may show something interesting. Or not.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.27, 11:07:05
Hi Gyula,
i quickly used my old Fluke 8060A true RMS DMM instead, and it showed the same behaviour as with the cheapo M890G DMM.
But when using the newer Fluke 179 true RMS DMM, i get NO change in the current AND no change in the PS voltage or current readings! (no change means a few tenth of mA's, like 29.4 without and 29.7 with).
It seems the newer Fluke filters out the RF going into the PS.
I will take some scope measurements tonight to see how this Fluke meter influences the RF feedback.
Thanks, Itsu
Ok, tried again the above, but now with my scope powered on to see the signals.
Unfortunatly, the Fluke 179 also shows the same behaviour as the M890G and the Fluke 8060A, RF feedback into the PS.
The problem was the ground lead of the scope probe.
When disconnected (which it was during my earlier Fluke 179 test) the RF feedback is NOT there, so when the scope probe is disconnected i can not invoke the RF feedback into the PS when the output lead is connected to the input positive.
The input current signals and amplitude stays the same around 30mA with or without connection output to input.
So somehow the grounding of the L3 enables the RF feedback allthough my PS (return lead) is not grounded.
Complicated stuff.
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Will try to digest this tomorrow.
Thanks and good night.
Gyula
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.27, 20:31:35
Ok, tried again the above, but now with my scope powered on to see the signals.
Unfortunatly, the Fluke 179 also shows the same behaviour as the M890G and the Fluke 8060A, RF feedback into the PS.
The problem was the ground lead of the scope probe.
When disconnected (which it was during my earlier Fluke 179 test) the RF feedback is NOT there, so when the scope probe is disconnected i can not invoke the RF feedback into the PS when the output lead is connected to the input positive.
The input current signals and amplitude stays the same around 30mA with or without connection output to input.
So somehow the grounding of the L3 enables the RF feedback allthough my PS (return lead) is not grounded.
Complicated stuff.
Regards Itsu
Itsu ,
Thanks by your efforts , and i really understand when you say "complicated stuff " sometimes i have the same feel , but well ,If it were easy, anyone already would have understood, and that alone is what motivates us not to give up on learning :).
Have a good night !
Hi Itsu,
Okay on the ground lead left connected earlier and now, when disconnected, the feedback into the PS is over.
If I understand you correctly, you connect the positive output of the diode bridge back to the positive input supply rail, right?
i.e. it is not the AC output from one of the L3 wire ends which is tied back.
This is what I first assumed (mistakenly) from Nelson's video, he showed the AC output across L3 on the scope and the feedback was from the positive output of the diode bridge. Maybe seeing the waveform across the DC output of the diode bridge could reveal something useful when the feedback is made. I think of the low value (100 nF) puffer cap across the DC output : it may prove to be a small value for adequate filtering when the loading effect (if there is any) of the feedback manifests.
So with your setup, now that there is no ground lead problem, the connection of the positive output back to the positive input rail has no any effect: input current waveform and amplitude would not change, right?
So there remains to figure out why the oscillator at Nelson behaves differently. Perhaps the leakage inductance of his 1:1 transformer (L2/L3) differs much from that of your 1:1 transformer.
Thanks
Gyula
Gyula,
QuoteIf I understand you correctly, you connect the positive output of the diode bridge back to the positive input supply rail, right?
i.e. it is not the AC output from one of the L3 wire ends which is tied back.
No, i (and Nelson as i understand) do NOT connect the positive output of the diode bridge back to the positive input supply rail.
I connect one side of L3 (so one side of the AC input of the bridge) to the positive input supply rail.
This L3 or the AC side of the bridge has these positive spikes/signals seen as yellow on my screenshots.
I connect the positive side of this L3 / AC bridge signal to the positive input supply rail.
QuoteSo with your setup, now that there is no ground lead problem, the connection of the positive output back to the positive input rail has no any effect: input current waveform and amplitude would not change, right?
Right.
As mentioned, my PS itself is grounded, but the internal PS's are floating, so the minus have no link to the earth ground.
In my setup, only the scope ground leads are earth ground connected, so when using only 1 probe at a time it should have no influence, but appearently it does.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.28, 11:28:02
Gyula,
No, i (and Nelson as i understand) do NOT connect the positive output of the diode bridge back to the positive input supply rail.
I connect one side of L3 (so one side of the AC input of the bridge) to the positive input supply rail.
Okay Itsu, thanks for clarification. I wonder what Nelson will say on his hook up in this respect. 8)
Quote
This L3 or the AC side of the bridge has these positive spikes/signals seen as yellow on my screenshots.
I connect the positive side of this L3 / AC bridge signal to the positive input supply rail.
Perhaps the text I put in bold has caused my misunderstanding. (You mentioned it like that in the video too.)
Greetings
Gyula
Gyula,
no problem, i often have problems with written text only, i like to see diagrams and pictures/video's as they normally avoid such misunderstandings.
I see where your misunderstanding could come from looking at my bold text above.
It could be though that i did misunderstand Nelson in his video about how he hooked up the led bulb and the feedback wire to the positive input rail, hopefully he can clear that up.
Itsu
Hello Itsu and Gyula,
sorry I haven't answered yet but this week has been tough, especially when working 12 hours with temperatures over 30 degrees on last days .
I will try to answer in general and synthesized the posts that you both published.
I connect the positive output of the diode bridge back to the positive input supply rail.
The oscilloscope is connected to the output of the L3 transformer, which connects to the diode bridge input in other words is connected to AC source.
My oscilloscope has its transformer connected, for convenience to charge the scope when i need, in a socket that i can turned on/off by a switch, but even if turned off on the switch, the ground of the socket itself apparently causes this effect, because if the socket is completely disconnected, the effect is almost imperceptible on the bulb.
If I disconnect the ground probe from the bridge the effect stop, as you could see in your previous video, but the curious is if i invert the probe position in legs of input bridge the effect stop .
I also tested a direct ground with a wire of more than 10 meters and the effect remains without apparent in the bulb without changing the output voltage.
In My studio I have an electrical panel made for convenience, with devices to prevent electrical discharges, (surge protective device), as well as an active current monitor, Watt meter, reactive measure etc.
It would be supposed not to happen this type of passage on the ground because it is a real ground and not connected with neutral as it happens in some cases.
Maybe they can be skin effect given the frequency involved?
I leave another video with other aspects observed but it was done after realizing the issue of ground on the scope.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/NsGLqXkhG7ouhinh7
(https://photos.app.goo.gl/NsGLqXkhG7ouhinh7)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/UXPK54AqtgFU9a3t6
(https://photos.app.goo.gl/UXPK54AqtgFU9a3t6)
Best rewards:
Nelson Rocha
Hi Nelson,
QuoteI connect the positive output of the diode bridge back to the positive input supply rail.
The oscilloscope is connected to the output of the L3 transformer, which connects to the diode bridge input in other words is connected to AC source.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
Also thanks for showing these nice effects with the ground.
Welcome to the wonderfull world of RF i would say :)
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.29, 15:55:14
Hi Nelson,
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
Also thanks for showing these nice effects with the ground.
Welcome to the wonderfull world of RF i would say :)
Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
I would like to add that if the probe is placed at the exit of the diode bridge rectifier, where it is supposed to be DC, the same behavior occurs, this leads me to conclude that there may be a very large margin of difficulty in making measurements correctly if the equipment does not be properly isolated from the ground.
Perhaps it is time for me to put an inverter to power my equipment's, in order to exclude the possibility of inducing false values during measurements.
Are your equipment (scope) completely isolated from the ground or does it have a floating ground?
thanks
Nelson,
well this situation is new to me and i would like to ask some more people to step in here to explain.
My PS is connected to ground, but its outputs are floating, so the minus leads are NOT connected to earth ground like a battery would.
But my FG and scopes are normally grounded and the ground leads are all on that earth ground level.
So therefor i always watch out with multiple scope probes and/or the FG leads where to put their ground leads so to NOT interfere with the measurements.
But here i only used 1 scope probe so i was convinced this would have no impact on the measurements or behaviour of the DUT, but appearently the latter is the case here.
A ground (in my case the scope ground lead ground) alters the behaviour and thus the measurements.
Its a lesson for me which i need to remember for future measurements.
There is a lot to be found on the net about isolating the DUT or the measurement device (scope / FG), but in general the idea is to isolate the DUT and NOT the measurement devices i think.
Regards Itsu
Hi Nelson,
It is good that the ground on the sockets has no connection to the neutral wire of the mains in your home (if that is what you meant).
Hopefully, there is no any other household applience in your home either, which has a poor or damaged isolation between its ground and the neutral connections which may willy-nilly 'provide' an unwanted direct connection or only a a few kOhm 'leakage' resistance or impedance between the neutral and the ground at the sockets.
Regarding the strange behaviour of the scope's ground probe i.e. when you "invert the probe position" at the AC input legs of the diode bridge and the effect stops, I think the following:
In an oscillator circuit the components are connected to either a low or a high impedance circuit point with respect to the DC supply rails. Also the components can have either a low or a high oscillating voltage across them, also with respect to the supply rails but of course this can be true directly across a particular component.
So when the ground probe of the scope is connected to the 'high' voltage point of L3 (which is also one of the AC diode bridge inputs), the available voltage difference to drive current into the 'ground' connection will be higher (to better initiate the effect) than in the case the ground croco is tied to the other end of L3. You may say that L3 is totally ground independent because it is inductively coupled to L2 but L2 is already directly connected into the circuit and the leakage inductance and stray capacitance between them may transfer the low and high voltage differences of L2's legs to L3 legs with respect to the ground rails. (The voltage difference across L2 is transformed normally, of course, L2/L3 being a 1:1 transformer.) This is how I think this can happen.
You also posted this:
"I would like to add that if the probe is placed at the exit of the diode bridge rectifier, where it is supposed to be DC, the same behavior occurs,"
Well, if my approach to explain this behaviour when the probe ground was at the input of the diode bridge is correct (what I think it is), then it should be valid for the output side of the diode bridge because the diodes conduct alternately of course, connecting L3 legs to the DC output.
Note C7 may have a role in this too, for it directly shunts one of the bridge diodes, albeit a 4 nF has about 2 kOhm capacitive reactance at 19 kHz, so may not be too significant (but it is present and 2 kOhm is not high to limit current when the peak to peak AC voltage is around 300 V).
The use of an inverter to supply ground independently your measuring instruments sounds good.
Another note: For your own safety, if your device under test is run from the mains and you need to tinker on it, the use of an inverter or an 1:1 isolating mains transformer is also a good idea (the latter is perhaps the best).
Regards and have cooler weather. 8)
Gyula
I hope you guys don't mind if I add a thought or two. If I understand correctly Itsu you are saying your ground pin of your wall socket is NOT connected to the neutral pin in your home? Is that correct? I thought according to code, at least in the U.S. all homes had to have the neutral line connected to a ground rod driven deep into the ground near the incoming power. And inside the main breaker box the neutral and ground busses are tied together so in effect all ground pins in the receptacles are connected to all neutral pins.
I once had to work on a problem with a new installation of an automated storage and retrieval system. The computer systems kept going crazy and shutting down. When I checked the 110 vac going to the system the voltage was almost dead on. But when I checked the neutral to ground there was a difference of almost 250 volts! The installer had failed to tie the secondary of the step-down transformer to ground so the 110 vac was floating in reference to ground. And this was causing all the problems. Once I grounded the secondary then everything settled down and worked fine.
One more thing and I will shut up. We sometimes had to work on motor controls that had no transformers in the supply side. To keep from blowing up our scopes we used for troubleshooting we made up some very short cables with male and female 110 vac connectors but left out the ground connection. Worked fine for trouble shooting. But I agree with Gyula a 1:1 isolation transformer is the best thing to use in this type of situation.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Hi CITFTA,
i appreciate your commenting, thanks.
But to be clear i did not say anything about our ground pin of our wall socket being connected (or not) to the neutral pin in our home.
I mentioned that my DC Power Supply (with 3 PS's in 1) is, as normal, connected to earth ground at its socket, but that the 3 PS's are floating from that earth ground, so their minus leads are NOT connected to earth ground.
But i understand that where i live (The Netherlands) our ground pin of our wall socket is NOT connected to the neutral pin in our home.
It is tight together at the Power company only.
Concerning the 1:1 isolation transformer, i understand the rule is to use it on the DUT, not on the measuring equipment (when possible).
Regards Itsu
Regarding electrical supply systems (mains networks) I think we all need to be aware of the ground ( in British English this term is earth 8) ) and neutral wire relation at our own location, in our own country. Standards may differ in this respect.
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.05.29, 21:46:09
Hi Nelson,
It is good that the ground on the sockets has no connection to the neutral wire of the mains in your home (if that is what you meant).
Hopefully, there is no any other household applience in your home either, which has a poor or damaged isolation between its ground and the neutral connections which may willy-nilly 'provide' an unwanted direct connection or only a a few kOhm 'leakage' resistance or impedance between the neutral and the ground at the sockets.
Regarding the strange behaviour of the scope's ground probe i.e. when you "invert the probe position" at the AC input legs of the diode bridge and the effect stops, I think the following:
In an oscillator circuit the components are connected to either a low or a high impedance circuit point with respect to the DC supply rails. Also the components can have either a low or a high oscillating voltage across them, also with respect to the supply rails but of course this can be true directly across a particular component.
So when the ground probe of the scope is connected to the 'high' voltage point of L3 (which is also one of the AC diode bridge inputs), the available voltage difference to drive current into the 'ground' connection will be higher (to better initiate the effect) than in the case the ground croco is tied to the other end of L3. You may say that L3 is totally ground independent because it is inductively coupled to L2 but L2 is already directly connected into the circuit and the leakage inductance and stray capacitance between them may transfer the low and high voltage differences of L2's legs to L3 legs with respect to the ground rails. (The voltage difference across L2 is transformed normally, of course, L2/L3 being a 1:1 transformer.) This is how I think this can happen.
You also posted this:
"I would like to add that if the probe is placed at the exit of the diode bridge rectifier, where it is supposed to be DC, the same behavior occurs,"
Well, if my approach to explain this behaviour when the probe ground was at the input of the diode bridge is correct (what I think it is), then it should be valid for the output side of the diode bridge because the diodes conduct alternately of course, connecting L3 legs to the DC output.
Note C7 may have a role in this too, for it directly shunts one of the bridge diodes, albeit a 4 nF has about 2 kOhm capacitive reactance at 19 kHz, so may not be too significant (but it is present and 2 kOhm is not high to limit current when the peak to peak AC voltage is around 300 V).
The use of an inverter to supply ground independently your measuring instruments sounds good.
Another note: For your own safety, if your device under test is run from the mains and you need to tinker on it, the use of an inverter or an 1:1 isolating mains transformer is also a good idea (the latter is perhaps the best).
Regards and have cooler weather. 8)
Gyula
Hi Gyula ,
Thanks by your opinion about this subject .
"Hopefully, there is no any other household appliance in your home either, which has a poor or damaged isolation between its ground and the neutral connections which may willy-nilly 'provide' an unwanted direct connection or only a a few kOhm 'leakage' resistance or impedance between the neutral and the ground at the sockets."After this point that you mentioned, I decided to measure the potential involved between neutral and earth in my house.
I measured all the available sockets as well as the General electrical panel where the connections with the electrical supplier are located, including the ground connection.
The measured values ranged from 0.4V to 0.5V, these being the values recommended by prevailing legislation in Portugal, and result from the capacitance created by the two adjacent conductors of the ground and neutral wire.
The recommended maximum values are located at 2.5v, above this value it may indicate an anomaly.
This clearly demonstrates a total isolation between neutral and earth :).
For this reason I will be able to say that everything is correctly with my earth connection.
In the past I had an excellent isolation transformer, which unfortunately I was unable to bring from Germany, do it with the costs involved in its transport (20kg) but had a wide range of primaries and secondaries, which facilitated in some tests where it involved voltages above the grid publishes.
But I do agree that it will be the best solution to try to discard some variables that could induce errors during measurements.
I will do some more tests that I will publish if they are interesting for this topic.
Have a nice weekend ;)
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.30, 08:07:44
Hi CITFTA,
i appreciate your commenting, thanks.
But to be clear i did not say anything about our ground pin of our wall socket being connected (or not) to the neutral pin in our home.
I mentioned that my DC Power Supply (with 3 PS's in 1) is, as normal, connected to earth ground at its socket, but that the 3 PS's are floating from that earth ground, so their minus leads are NOT connected to earth ground.
But i understand that where i live (The Netherlands) our ground pin of our wall socket is NOT connected to the neutral pin in our home.
It is tight together at the Power company only.
Concerning the 1:1 isolation transformer, i understand the rule is to use it on the DUT, not on the measuring equipment (when possible).
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu ,
The same happens in my home in Portugal in general with exception in rural areas .
The ground connection here in Portugal is also completely independent of the neutral. I think this practice has been adopted in recent years to prevent ground loop and other events such as parasitic noise in household appliances.
Well i need dig more this subject matter.
I wish you a great weekend
Yes, and those "ground loops" can be devastating. We do have that problem here, with the houses that have both 220v and 120v on the same installation. If the ground line gets too resistive due to corrosion, the 220 will jump over to the 120 side, and bang, there goes all the lights and everything that is not 220v, up in smoke. And also, there is considerable stray AC, throughout the wiring in my house. Even on the floor, tables, etz... even with two grounding rods outside. Although the humidity, rain, and salt from the beach, may have something to do with it.
Hi Nelson,
If you can scavenge two mains transformers from some dysfunctional and old microwave owens, then connecting their HV secondaries together, (back to back) you would have eventually a 230 V in and nearly 230 V output isolation transformer. C.C
The latest microwave owens nowadays have a switch mode power supply... this is why I wrote old types (from junkyards or service shops).
Have a good weekend too.
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2020.05.30, 18:16:00
The latest microwave owens nowadays have a switch mode power supply... this is why I wrote old types (from junkyards or service shops).
...and municipal recycling centres. (For legal reasons, be certain to say they are wanted for spares only - which is true - but needs saying).
Placeholder for a picture concerning the "Manelas device":
Smudge,
did you see this email exchange about the manelas device here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg113512.html (press "Next Message" to read on).
Itsu
I was planning to return to OU.com to do a revisite of the original "Dally nano-pulser" (using his original parts) in the: "Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY" thread and to join the threads opened there by Smudge (NMR) and Partzman.
But looking at the latest posts overthere, i can't help to notice that still that Forum is "under siege".
Untill that is corrected i will refrain from posting there.
Instead i will report my results on the Dally nano-pulser here and also try to contribute from here to the above mentioned threads by Smudge and Partzman.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.06.13, 16:35:41
I was planning to return to OU.com to do a revisite of the original "Dally nano-pulser" (using his original parts) in the: "Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY" thread and to join the threads opened there by Smudge (NMR) and Partzman.
But looking at the latest posts overthere, i can't help to notice that still that Forum is "under siege".
Untill that is corrected i will refrain from posting there.
Instead i will report my results on the Dally nano-pulser here and also try to contribute from here to the above mentioned threads by Smudge and Partzman.
Itsu
Itsu,
I understand and agree with you wholeheartedly. There is an individual who seems to try to disrupt certain threads with the same old clip art and then belittles anyone questioning his lack of production of a valid OU device which he claims he and his followers have an abundance of!
Until he is put under control by Stefan, I refuse to post any info there as well.
regards,
Pm
I also agree with you both. O0 O0 O0
I really didn't expect the leopard to change it's spots. And I told Chet that when he asked if I wanted to participate in that thread. When that individual is gone I will go back to posting there.
Carroll
Triggered by some PM's from members on OU.com concerning the original Dally nano-pulser, i decided to do a revisite of that original nano-pulser build by Dally using his components.
The diagram can be seen below and shows mainly the KT926 transistor, the KD203 diodes driven by a pair of KP1554 (74HC(T)00) chips.
A picture of the circuit can also be seen below.
The problem we had then was that the driver was unable to fully switch on the transistor thus preventing from the nano-pulse to reach the required 1KV.
https://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg342183/#msg342183
After building a similar setup as Dally, see 2th picture and using KD226D diodes instead of the KD203's (still on order), i have managed to get some nano-pulses going with it, but again the drive section is unable to fully switch on the transistor at 150V resulting in poor output on the nano-pulse (about 147V).
I tried severall driver circuits like the one shown in the diagram and the more modern by verpies designed one shown at the bottom.
This latest driver design i am using right now, but i included a MOSFET driver to boost the driver signal (12V).
Even with this MOSFET driver included, the results are modest as that the max. nano-pulse seen was about 470V see screenshot.
So i will be waiting for the KD203 diodes and see if that makes much difference, else i have to conclude that this original design by Dally was unable to create the claimed 1KV nano-pulse.
There was an idea that the used Russian KP1554 chips could be "stronger" then the 74HCT02 and could fully switch on the transistor, however i doubt it seeing that even with a MOSFET driver it does not work.
Itsu
Just a suggestion, use normal MOSFET transistor like IRF840 and higher supply voltage. You will be able reach relatively easy 1KV.
Hi Vasik041,
thanks, i know, i have build them up to 2KV, but my intention here is to use the components Dally suppose to have used back then, meaning the KT926 transistor, the KD203A diodes and driven only by the
KP1554 / 74HCT00 chips.
This seems to be impossible, so that means that Dally did not reveal all, used different components/diagram or plainly misled everyone.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.06.14, 12:22:22
Hi Vasik041,
thanks, i know, i have build them up to 2KV, but my intention here is to use the components Dally suppose to have used back then, meaning the KT926 transistor, the KD203A diodes and driven only by the
KP1554 / 74HCT00 chips.
This seems to be impossible, so that means that Dally did not reveal all, used different components/diagram or plainly misled everyone.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
I think it is obvious, otherwise somebody already would replicated the device.
KT926 is old high frequency transistor from USSR times, I don't see why anybody would want use it.
Especially because "switching" in this setup happens in core and diode.
And I think coax cable connected in a wrong way, I would rather connect it like this
Regards,
-V.
Hi -V.
thanks for confirming the obvious.
Yes there must be severall ways to connect the severall parts, including the coax, but as mentioned, this was how Dally claimed his device worked then.
It is mind boggling to me that someone would go through all this and setup circuits that in theory can work, but by using wrong or inadequate components ending up with some dysfunctional junk device
that then somehow have to be faked as working :D
Itsu
Hi all, hope you are all well and comfortable here, however reading your posts on the OU problems, well the individual you refer to has since the turning of midnight hour operas to have been given more powers,
and appears to be able to delete in none moderated threads, so being dragged into line doesn't appear to be something that's about to happen in the near future. It would appear.
AG
Hi AG,
thanks, sounds impressive (3ns), would you care to show your build and resulting screenshots?
Concerning being "some what superior to the Dally device", as mentioned also to -V above, i have no doubt better designs are possible, but i want to see if the Dally setup would work as claimed.
Regards Itsu
I was cooperating with Itsu on the design of two nanopulse generators. One was DSRD based and the other one was based on transistor avalanche.
The latter one was had low power within the pulse but the pulsewidth was even below a nanosecond and for that reason I think it was called a "picosecond" or "picopulse" generator.
The DSRD nanopulse generator has gone through several design iterations and eventually it could be even triggered externally from a FG and the power within the nanopulse was on the order of 70kW but the pulsewidth had never gone below 1ns.
I don't remember how Dally's original pulser was supposed to work but I'd like to notice, that it is possible to drive the gate of a MOSFET with a high voltage picopulse from an avalanching old BJT, even if the amplitude of this picopulse across a resistive load significantly exceeds the VGS_MAX. This is possible because the gate presents a capacitive load and a sufficiently narrow pulse MIGHT NOT have enough energy to charge this capacitance higher than the VGS_MAX.
I like narrow high power pulses because they deliver energy to matter over a very wide bandwidth (especially when the PRF is low) and they can stimulate almost any kind of resonance within that bandwidth...all without much tuning. Their downside is that they waste energy on these parts of the spectrum where resonance does not happen....but when you have tens of kilowatts of power within the pulse, then there is power to squander.
The alternative approach to stimulating resonance is a targeted CW tone burst at the exact resonance frequency, but that requires very precise tuning, ...which might be hard when the target is moving.
The FM sweep is a compromise between these two extreme approaches.
verpies,
the pico-pulser we worked on still is in use here for measuring impedances using time domain Reflectometry.
It was shown here: https://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg338331/#msg338331
I guess the one mentioned by AlienGrey above falls into that category.
Its a pitty the screenshot is not more clear as it hardly shows the data, but it shows a bi-polar pulse, not sure that is a benefit or not.
Itsu
What are you going to use the pulser for?
Hi Grumpy,
the pico-pulser i still use sometimes for measuring / adjusting 50 Ohm impedances.
The Dally nano-pulser i am revisiting is an attempt to show to myself that that original shown nano-pulser does not work as claimed as we were not able then to create the 1ns / 1KV pulses.
Now that i have almost all those original components, it again shows that 1ns / 1KV pulses are impossible with it.
Itsu
Hmmm, i received the KD203A diodes today (they are huge, see picture) and put them in instead of the KD226D's.
It showed directly a similar nano-pulse output (470V) as the KD226D diodes, but after some tuning i was able to increase this pulse to about 1KV, see screenshot.
So i have to reconsider my earlier statement about it being impossible that Dally had a 1 KV nano-pulse with his components.
Its not 1ns wide, and it still uses the MOSFET driver to boost the input signal, but the backend components are able to produce something very close.
I had to increase the W2 toroid winding series capacitor from the mentioned 1nF to 4nF to reach this.
All in all i think i should change my earlier conclusion from impossible to plausible.
I will move the driver components, now on a seperate breadboard, to the same PCB as the nano-pulser to make the wiring as short as possible for a possible further increase/decrease in amplitude/width.
Itsu
I bet that picopulser with the 4pF energy reservoir (C1), would not be even able to charge the gate capacitance of a power MOSFET which is around 1nF. You can try if you have some ready-to-burn MOSFETs laying around.
If it was stronger then the bipolarity of the picopulse would only help with turning off the MOSFET faster.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.06.16, 19:52:36
Hmmm, i received the KD203A diodes today (they are huge, see picture) and put them in instead of the KD226D's.
In what circuit did you put them? I lost track.
Anyway, thank the Russians for making such "crappy" diffused diodes.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.06.16, 19:52:36
I had to increase the W2 toroid winding series capacitor from the mentioned 1nF to 4nF to reach this.
Besides the DSRD, that toroid and the associated cap are the most critical components for good nanopulse formation.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.06.16, 19:52:36
All in all i think i should change my earlier conclusion from impossible to plausible.
I would, too.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.06.16, 19:52:36
I will move the driver components, now on a seperate breadboard, to the same PCB as the nano-pulser to make the wiring as short as possible for a possible further increase/decrease in amplitude/width.
If I were you, I'd skip the breadboard or stripboard and assemble it with the "dead bug" method using very short wires (litz for any interconnects longer than 5mm ...and for the toroid windings, too). Air construction is ugly but it has much less parasitics than a construction on a board.
This is especially important in the section containing the DSRD, tranny, the saturable little toroid and the associated cap. The "driver" section is less critical.
Quote from: verpies on 2020.06.16, 20:08:39
In what circuit did you put them? I lost track.
Anyway, thank the Russians for making such "crappy" diffused diodes.
Besides the DSRD, that toroid and the associated cap are the most critical components for good nanopulse formation.
I would, too.
If I were you, I'd skip the breadboard or stripboard and assemble it with the "dead bug" method using very short wires (litz for any interconnects longer than 5mm ...and for the toroid windings, too). Air construction is ugly but it has much less parasitics than a construction on a board.
This is especially important in the section containing the DSRD, tranny, the saturable little toroid and the associated cap. The "driver" section is less critical.
I can imagine you lost track, this one thread is starting to be a hotchpotch of different projects, not good, i have to open more threads for the different projects.
It started a few posts above, see Post #676:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg82420#msg82420
The purpose of this little project is to see if Dally with his nano-pulser on his PCB and the components he used was able to produce the claimed 1ns / 1KV nano-pulse.
It seems that it is plausible looking at my results.
I wanted to stay as close to Dally his layout, so therefor the similar PCB layout and setup.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.06.16, 20:22:57
The purpose of this little project is to see if Dally with his nano-pulser on his PCB and the components he used was able to produce the claimed 1ns / 1KV nano-pulse.
I know, I know. It's a worthy goal.
Thanks AG,
looking good, execpt for the blurry picture ;)
But why all the different names like AlienGrey, Raycathode and Grey Wolf?
Itsu
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2020.06.17, 23:16:03
I only had a 4011 nand gate to play with...
What logic family ?
AG:
"why the different names"? I noticed that also. Along with your endless questions, without follow ups.
Perhaps, you guy's spelling gave you away?
itsu: Did Dally use an outside Earth ground on his nanopulser device? Are you using one on that same type of replication? And have you tried a ground connection. Sorry for the questions, but I've lost track, as well.
NickZ
AG: Your son. Ok, now I get it. Thanks.
Hi Nick,
Guess it was before your time :P
yes, Dally used a ground, see page 1 reply #1 (so second post) of the "Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY" thread.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDab7cIW1I&feature=player_embedded
Or super big diagram here: https://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg337931/#msg337931
And yes i used a ground on my replication then too.
Itsu
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2020.06.18, 12:05:17
CD4000 it works doesn't it see scope shot, I bet we could get it better than that over time !
Do you realize that CD4000 is one of the slowest logic families out there now ?
For alternatives see e.g.
this (https://www.ti.com/lit/sg/sdyu001ab/sdyu001ab.pdf?ts=1592518879365).
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.06.18, 19:06:59
Hi Nick,
Guess it was before your time :P
yes, Dally used a ground, see page 1 reply #1 (so second post) of the "Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY" thread.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDab7cIW1I&feature=player_embedded
Or super big diagram here: https://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg337931/#msg337931
And yes i used a ground on my replication then too.
itsu: Thanks for the schematic, and the video. You had always amazed me in the later Dally thread, yes, when I finally got there. You knew so much about each component that we were using in the Ruslan type replications, which I was only just learning about. Now I know why. The Dally circuit seamed very advanced for it's time, much more advanced than what Kapanadze showed. As they are family, I can see the similarities with the later Ruslan, versions etz. I wonder if if the Dally circuit was also one of Oleg's designs, all along.
I'm sure you know what I was getting at with the ground line, the long thick tuned Earth ground line. As I know your situation back then, and possibly has not change, now.
Great circuit recreation, worth the effort.
Good luck, and thanks again.
NickZ
Itsu
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2020.06.18, 22:56:50
yes but under the lockdown it was all i could get any way in that circuit we arnt using it's speed we are using a window.
What "window" ?!
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2020.06.18, 22:56:50
if i can get some 74hc00 or ac or hc i might be able to alter its fold over speed but it's not easy as the lower 2 nands has its pin outs
reversed could do with a 74HC4011 but i dont think it exists.
Yes 74HC00 exists and contains four NAND gates just like the CD4011. So what is the big problem with a different pinout?
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2020.06.18, 22:30:56
that circuit will never work like that, can you see why ?
No. Could you be more direct? i.e. no riddles to solve
Also, this is Itsu's workbench thread. This means that talking about your own circuits here is off-topic.
If you want to talk about your circuits then make your own workbench thread. If you want to talk about other people's circuits without the originator's participation, then create a general thread about it.
Here, discuss only what Itsu is currently building...and right now he is building a high-power nanopulser based on a crappy old Russian transistor and crappy old Russian diode, because he wants to verify whether Dally's original claims were plausible.
AG,
good advice from verpies, open your own thread so you can present your circuit there, explain what it
suppose to do, have diagrams, pictures, PDF's, video's, etc. attached and have a discussion started.
Regards Itsu
No problem posts deleated
Quote from: lost_bro on 2020.06.19, 03:47:56
Good Day AlienGrey:
Quote from: verpies on 2020.06.19, 07:31:03
What "window" ?!
Yes 74HC00 exists and contains four NAND gates just like the CD4011. So what is the big problem with a different pinout?
No. Could you be more direct? i.e. no riddles to solve
sure a 74HC4011 and a CD4011 has same pin outs a 74HC00 does not.
Also a window (data window) starts off with one timing post split in to 2 and one leg of the split has a variable delay
you can then gate it 'on' on the input of a mos fet driver and the turn it off with the other input what could be simpler ?
I'm not trying to be clever but i don't really want to build another board so do you know where I can get a 74HC011 ?
i can't find any.
Also, this is Itsu's workbench thread. This means that talking about your own circuits here is off-topic.
If you want to talk about your circuits then make your own workbench thread. If you want to talk about other people's circuits without the originator's participation, then create a general thread about it.
That's ok i didn't know that, I have deleted my posts as best I can.
Here, discuss only what Itsu is currently building...and right now he is building a high-power nano pulser based on a crappy old Russian transistor and crappy old Russian diode, because he wants to verify whether Dally's original claims were plausible.
Regards AG also the KT296 is only a 32mhz device it's useless at HF RF frequencies you need a 300 mhz to get a decent nano pulse even then its distorted and if I'm not mistaken is all we are interested in is the rise time and the fall time that has to be in the lower nano range not the gap in between. Un less you know other wise and if you not care full pulses like that are both dangerous and deadly.
Cheers AG
PS thanks for the info
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2020.06.19, 18:04:29
sure a 74HC4011 and a CD4011 has same pin outs a 74HC00 does not.
Adapting to a different pinout is easier than finding a chip that is not manufactured.
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2020.06.19, 18:04:29
Also a window (data window) starts off with one timing post split in to 2 and one leg of the split has a variable delay
you can then gate it 'on' on the input of a mos fet driver and the turn it off with the other input what could be simpler ?
I am sorry, I do not understand that sentence. Is English your native language? (...if it is not - I will read it twice).
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2020.06.19, 18:04:29
I'm not trying to be clever but i don't really want to build another board so do you know where I can get a 74HC011 ?
What makes you think it is possible to get it at all?
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2020.06.19, 18:04:29
... the KT296 is only a 32mhz device it's useless at HF RF frequencies you need a 300 mhz to get a decent nano pulse even then its distorted and if I'm not mistaken is all we are interested in is the rise time and the fall time that has to be in the lower nano range not the gap in between.
The Modus Operandi of the DSR diode is
not contingent upon a fast rise time (or fall time) of its driver. This diode interrupts the reverse current very abruptly even if the reverse current pulse was initiated very slowly (with a long risetime).
The level of reverse current flowing when the DSR diode interrupts it, is much more important to the power of the nanopulse, than the transition time of the diode's driver.
In the end it is an inductance that is responsible for the generation of the high-amplitude nanopulse because inductors really "don't like to" have their current interrupted abruptly.
Quote from: verpies on 2020.06.18, 22:28:56
Do you realize that CD4000 is one of the slowest logic families out there now ?
For alternatives see e.g. this (https://www.ti.com/lit/sg/sdyu001ab/sdyu001ab.pdf?ts=1592518879365).
That depends on where you get them from and how long ago they were manufactured, I got some devices with TI
logo on them they looked as if they had been stored some time boy were the slow!
I also had some 74AHC00 devices they are worse than 74HC00 devices full of ringing and harmonics and fly off into oscilation
on fast switching.
So it goes to show unless one experiments we dont know what we are getting for our money.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.06.19, 15:36:54
AG,
good advice from verpies, open your own thread so you can present your circuit there, explain what it
suppose to do, have diagrams, pictures, PDF's, video's, etc. attached and have a discussion started.
Regards Itsu
regarding the circuit diagram You must be jesting :-\ I built it up as i went along, It's not like writing a 16F84 code where one does comments
next
to the code, your lucky I did a pcb from the bread board layout i will post that when i get my thread sorted out it's all you need to get it going you will see later on.
PS I dont have a PDF editor never had the need for one.
regards
AG
I saw a post from verpies at OU.com (see steps below) which looks to me like a nice little project.
Quote1) Attach two identical magnets on the perimeter of a bicycle wheel, diametrically oppositely.
2) Place two identical air core coils around the wheel diametrically oppositely.
3) Open both coils and precisely calibrate their position such that their induced voltage signals are identical and in phase.
4) Close one coil and prepare it for current measurement.
5) The bicycle wheel can be spun by hand but the i&v measurement must be made only when it is spinning down by itself (by its moment of inertia).
6) Repeat the experiment with the roles of the coils reversed, i.e. close the voltage sensing coil and open the current sensing coil.
So i have put something together and toke a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3ZCh3gweuk
The below screenshots show; 1 the voltages synced and 2 the voltage/current.
Seems the current is in phase with the voltage, no 90° phase shift as one would expect in an inductive circuit.
Coils 40 turns (2 layers) litz wire ~290uH / 1 Ohm.
Itsu
Hey itsu
QuoteSo i have put something together and toke a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3ZCh3gweuk
You look like a man with a mission... have you looked at the Adams motor?.
In my opinion it is by far the easiest setup using a motor/generator setup to produce the desired results. If I remember correctly the last variant was disclosed by two gentlemen in Australia who were promptly shut down as is often the case.
Regards
Hi AC,
yes i did look at the Adam's motor, but already some years ago (2011) on that Energetics.com forum before i got problems there.
Found that its been running in parallel resonance mode, but was not able (then) to replicate, perhaps time to revisit:
http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/8022-muller-generator-replication-by-romerouk?p=216358#post216358
QuoteBy the way, when researching on the Adams motor info in http://qvision.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Adams.rar , i found references
of this motor being driven in parallel resonance (200uF)
No diagram however is showing this, so i guess that is one of the missing info on the Adams motor.
See this info in the "Adams Manuel Addendum.pdf" in the above rar file:
================================================== ==========================
Coil Config, Used to Drive Motor: COIL 6B IH SERIES COIL 7B
Generator Voltage File VOPR01.DAT ..... Rotor Radius -------- 5.750 In.
Force Function File LBPAOl.DAT ........ Rotor-Stator GaP ---- 0.375 In.
Has Zero-Current Force? YES ........... Angle ON ------------ 55.000 deg.
Mode of Operation ATTRACTION .......... Angle OFF ----------- 80.000 Deg.
Rotation Direction CLOCKWISE .......... Duty Cycle ---------- 0.278.
Windage Drag at 100RPH 0.002 FtLb ..... Reporting Interv for Cal 1.000 Deg
Coil Inductance ------- 13.530 MHn .... Integrate Steps/Rep Intv 100
Capacitance ----------- 2OO.OOO Ufd ... Total Loops Calculated 6
Coil Resistance ------- 1.300 Ohm ..... Intervals to sw Close 55
Capacitor Resistance -- 0.200 Ohm ..... Interyals to Sw Open 80
Battery Resistance----- 0.800 Ohm ..... Resonant FrequencY---- 96.751 Hz
BatterY Voltage-------- 12.900 Vlt. ... Resonant Freq equvalent 1451.268 RPH
================================================== ==========================
Itsu
Question from Partzman on OU.com:
QuoteI guess a question would be if Itsu spun his bicycle wheel at a higher RPM, would the current lag begin to reduce from 90 degrees?
Not sure if thats the correct question as my phase is 0°, and it thus can only "increase to" or "decrease to" 90°.
Anyway, my fastes spin creates a frequency of about 4Hz, which seems its max as things start to get unstable (the wheel) The pulses stay in phase (0°) then.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.10.11, 20:27:32
Question from Partzman on OU.com:
Not sure if thats the correct question as my phase is 0°, and it thus can only "increase to" or "decrease to" 90°.
Anyway, my fastes spin creates a frequency of about 4Hz, which seems its max as things start to get unstable (the wheel) The pulses stay in phase (0°) then.
Itsu
Yes, I realized what I had stated later on and edited the post for the right direction on phase!
At this point, I don't think rotating your wheel to a higher speed will change the phase because the PMs are hard magnetic sources whereas the induction coil reactance varies with frequency requiring more current at the lower frequencies.
Regards,
Pm
Regards,
Pm
0.1 Ohm csr versus 1 Ohm csr, what is the difference??During my replication of the CaptainLoz device (COP=2) see here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3951.msg85401;topicseen#msg85401
i was forced to use different probes (x1) and csr's (0.1 Ohm) as that i would do normally to stay close to the Captains device as possible.
I would normally never use x1 probes and for good reason like it is mentioned in some literature like here: https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/test-methods/oscilloscope/scope-probes.php
QuoteThe X1 probes are suitable for many low frequency applications.
They offer the same input impedance of the oscilloscope which is normally 1 MΩ.
However for applications where better accuracy is needed and as frequencies start to rise,
other test probes are needed.
And i would normally use a 1 Ohm csr as that gives a simple 1:1 conversion from voltage to current.
The x1 probe seems to have not that much influence on the measurements, only some, so i will leave it at the above literature warnings to avoid such probes.
Concerning the 0.1 Ohm csr i made a video showing the difference between a 1 Ohm and a 0.1 Ohm csr which are enormous i think.
Not that it will explain the COP=2, but it puzzeles me how it is possible.
Is there an explaination on why in this setup there is so much difference in the shape and form of the current trace from the 0.1 Ohm csr (see screenshot 1) compared to the current probe trace and 1 Ohm voltage trace (see screenshot 2)?
Green is the current probe trace,
blue is the voltage trace across the csr's.
Video here: https://youtu.be/VKnC-mMVU38
Thanks, Itsu
I used my current probe (green) and a x1 probe (blue) to do a 10s sweep on the FG from 1KHz to 1MHz on a circuit consisting of a 12V/5W automotive bulb and the test csr's, see circuit below.
I use a x1 probe and set the scope channel for the 1 Ohm csr to x1, for the 3x 0.1 Ohm csr's the scope channel was set to x10.
The current probe and 1 Ohm csr are again reasonable in line with each other, see screenshot 1.
But the 3 used 0.1 Ohm csr's are all showing to much voltage/current, almost up to 3 times.
The Dale WSR-2 SMD is the better one, especially in the higher frequency range.
The 2x 0.05 Ohm Riedons in series (0.1 Ohm) the worst, but could be due to having 2 in series.
The Ohmite 13FR100E 0.1 Ohm which i used in the video yesterday is the inbetween, but in general showing way to much voltage / current.
I frankly am amazed that these 0.1 Ohm csr's behave this way, and confirms to me that the 1 Ohm csr is far superior.
Itsu
So knowing now that the Dale WSR-2 SMD 0.1 Ohm csr is the best performer at high frequency i used that for comparison to the current probe in the CaptainLoz device like shown in the earlier video.
At again 780Khz, AND with the RF probe tip on my x10 voltage probe, it now comes closer to the current probe (and 1 Ohm csr) signal shape and form (current probe: green, Dale: blue).
It still reads to high (500mA rms versus 352mA rms for the current probe) though, see screenshot.
https://nl.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Vishay-Dale/WSR2R1000FEA?qs=PUEz8%2FWD9fVTh6NtLrZyAA%3D%3D
• Very low inductance 0.5 nH to 5 nH
• Excellent frequency response to 50 MHz
The ragged edges to me means still to much inductance, or rather to much inductance in relation to its resistance if that makes sense, or.....?
Itsu
First to mention is that CSR's are there in all form and shapes and are very usefull up to very low values like 0.1, 0.05 up to 0.005 Ohm etc.
In DC-like applications like current sensing in DC power supplies etc. they are accurate.
But when using them in AC-like applications we have to consider the reactance of the inductance which comes into play.
This is clearly seen in my above screenshots where already at 1MHz the values start to increase (very worse at 10MHz) because the relation between the resistance (0.1 Ohm) and the reactance becomes worse and worse.
I measured 29nH for the Dale 0.1 csr, my best performer, and at 1Mhz this reactance will be 0.182 Ohm, meaning almost twice the value of the original 0.1 Ohm we thought we had.
https://www.66pacific.com/calculators/inductive-reactance-calculator.aspx
So at my 780Khz it still has a reactance of 0.142 Ohm, thus totaling the csr to be 0.1 + 0.142 = 0.242 Ohm.
If you "correct" this 0.1 Ohm csr by using a x1 probe and set the scopes channel to x10 so the scope shows the correct value for this 0.1 Ohm resistor you are way off.
So still "in this replication case" i would use the 1 Ohm csr as this same 29nH = 0.142 Ohm has only a slight influence on the 1 Ohm (1 Ohm + 0.142 Ohm = 1.142 Ohm).
If this 1 Ohm csr is to much and disturbs the overunity effect to manifest, then a current probe could be the answer.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
You have been making very good tests to explore the behaviour of some current shunt resistors labeled as 'inductance free or non-inductive', offered by various manufacturers.
You found the frequency response for the Riedon flat wire type shunt resistor the worst (see your Reply #711 above) and this behaviour may 'seem' to come from being two such shunts in series.
However, those types are practically bended flat wires with given lengths, I found a data sheet for them here https://riedon.com/media/pdf/MSR.pdf (https://riedon.com/media/pdf/MSR.pdf)
Taking the 5W rated type as an example, the Length is 20.3 mm, Height is 25.4 mm, the total 'wire' length amounts to 71.1 mm. This is the worst case from wire length point of view, the 1 W rated type has a Length of 11.4 mm, a Heigth of 5.1 mm, total length 21.6 mm.
I mention these "wire" lengths because there is a rule of thumb in RF engineering circles that a 1 cm long straight piece of conductor with about 0.5 mm OD has about L=10 nH inductance.
Aside from this 'thumb rule' (which is an approximation), here is a wire inductance calculator http://www.consultrsr.net/resources/eis/induct5.htm (http://www.consultrsr.net/resources/eis/induct5.htm) and if I fill 1 mm for wire diameter, 71.1 mm for wire length, it gives 69.78 nH. For 0.5 mm wire diameter the same length gives 79.5 nH.
I see that your Riedon shunt resistors mostly have flat wires and only their bended-down legs are round towards their solderable ends. Here is a flat wire inductor calculator for checking inductances with the actual mechanical sizes you have for those Riedon types:
https://chemandy.com/calculators/flat-wire-inductor-calculator.htm (https://chemandy.com/calculators/flat-wire-inductor-calculator.htm)
The inductive reactance for the 1 W and 3 W rated Riedon shunt resistors will surely be less, due to their smaller mechanical sizes with respect to my 5 W example.
I understand that the manufacturer included a Low Inductance (< 10 nH) 'data' among the description in the data sheet but this can only be considered as a marketing slogen, especially for 3 W and 5 W rated types due to their mechanical sizes. Wire lengths do count and increase self inductance.
All in all, your measurements show we all should pay serious attention to what type current shunts we use. In DC circuits such flat wire type current shunt resistors are excellent choices but in pulsed circuits, above a few kHz pulse frequencies, their inductive behaviour cause false measurement results, especially towards the some hundred kHz frequencies. Your results above clearly show this. O0
Gyula
Thanks Gyula,
its good to have such calculators for showing at what frequency a piece of wire already influences the circuit.
Regards Itsu
Thanks to Gyula his calculator, especially the flat-wire-calculator: https://chemandy.com/calculators/flat-wire-inductor-calculator.htm i noticed that my measurements using my Agilent U1733C LCR meter were somewhat off for the Riedon flat wire csr's, the type also used by CaptainLoz.
They calculate to be 23.5nH each, so for 2 in series that would mean 47nH, while i measured 29nH for the both in series.
Not surprisingly as we are dealing with very low inductances and more important, the fact that there always are connection leads added which also have some inductance.
So i used my mini VNA (Vector Network Analyzer) the nanoVNA-F2 to characterize the used csr's.
The advantage is that the "plane of reference" (the point from where we do the actual measurement) can be pinpointed very precies, so ommiting any connection leads.
The result can be seen in the 4 screenshots below:
1st is the Dale 0.1 Ohm csr (still the best with 12nH)
2th is the Ohmite 0.1 Ohm csr (16nH)
3th are the 2 Riedon 0.05 Ohm in series (0.1 Ohm) csr (48nH)
4th is a single Riedon 0.05 Ohm csr (25nH very close to the calculated 23.5nH).
The 4 screenshots show 4 graphs each and some data taken at 3 markers.
I used a scan from 10KHz (minimum) to 10MHz.
Markers are at 809Hz (~CaptainLoz his device), 5Mhz and 10MHz.
Upper left graph is the Smith chart which is default and not very usefull here.
Upper right is Resistance (blue) and Reactance (green)
Lower left is Inductance
Lower right is Impedance (combination of resistance and reactance)
The Inductance and Resistance stays fairly flat across the 10MHz range.
The Reactance and thus the Impedance shows an increasing line with frequency as expected.
The Dale seems the best one, followed by the Ohmite and last is/are the Riedon(s).
So captainLoz would be able to calculate very accuratly the inductance of his metal bridge csr, and from that calculate the added reactance at a certain frequency using this calculator:
https://www.66pacific.com/calculators/inductive-reactance-calculator.aspx
I don't think this will explain the COP=2, but it can interfere with the measurements taken.
Regards Itsu
As mentioned above, these above measurements were taken directly at the bases of the csr's, so without any connection leads, see the blue dots in the below picture.
If using a pcb with copper traces, connection pins and a standard voltage probe (without RF tip), then not only the csr leads are playing a role in added inductance (reactance), but also the copper traces, connection pins and probe leads, see red lines in the picture.
The below screenshot shows what happens when doing so.
We can directly compare the below screenshot to the last one above which is the same single Riedon bare metal 0.05 Ohm (50mOhm) csr.
The overall resistance is more then doubled at 800KHz (116mOhm), but the total impedance has skyrocketed due to the reactance (and now probably some capacitance) to almost 1 Ohm (984mOhm).
Itsu
What does the above means for the CaptainLoz COP=2 device?
He uses a similar bare metal csr of 0.1 Ohm but on a pcb with connection leads and the common voltage probe, see screenshot from his Video 9.
My 0.05 Ohm bare metal csr turns out to be almost 1 Ohm at 800Khz, which is 20x more!
Does this 0.1 Ohm bare metal csr suffer from the same problem?
Lets assume it will be only 10x more, so turning out to be 1 Ohm at 800KHz.
If still using a x1 probe, but x10 scope channel settings to "adjust" for the 0.1 Ohm, we now make it a 10 Ohm csr which means 10x to much current.
Will using the math function on the scope with voltage and 10x the current result in a 10x more power?
I expect so allthough we might face some phase differences which could make it even worse or less worse.
I have ordered some 0.1 Ohm bare metal csr's like the Captain and will redo my above tests with them, so we will see.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.11.21, 11:50:06
...
I have ordered some 0.1 Ohm bare metal csr's like the Captain and will redo my above tests with them, so we will see.
Hi Itsu,
It is very good you are going to explore the behaviour of those 0.1 Ohm bare metal current shunt resistors.
I think this type of resistors seen in the above picture are also called metal strip through-hole resistors. They are excellent types for current measurements in DC circuits and possibly in the lower, some kHz AC or pulsed circuits. Unfortunately, as the frequency of the current increases, such metal strips with their given mechanical sizes like Length would manifest in an increasing inductive reactance (series R-L circuit) as the frequency increases. Your swept frequency tests so far clearly indicate how important to choose the correct make and type of such shunt resistors.
It is okay that the good practice is to use as small value shunt as is possible, not to disturb significantly the circuit in which the current is to be measured, so the use of a 0.1 Ohm resistor (or even less in some cases) chosen for this task is preferred to the ones higher than this. However, if we are not aware of the inherent inductance that may come together with our resistor choice, then as a result we can end up with a much higher than 0.1 Ohm impedance that we have built into our circuit and we do not know about it.
Thanks for all your efforts and trouble to do these tests.
Greetings
Gyula
You are welcom Gyula, i always appreciate your insigths O0
yes, i would like to know what i am dealing with when using such csr's in my replication when working with CaptainLoz in the future.
I am lucky to have a good current probe to compare data with, so hopefully others can benefit from the outcome.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.11.21, 19:44:26
You are welcom Gyula, i always appreciate your insigths O0
yes, i would like to know what i am dealing with when using such csr's in my replication when working with CaptainLoz in the future.
I am lucky to have a good current probe to compare data with, so hopefully others can benefit from the outcome.
Itsu
Hi Itsu
Just posting the pics here-re our PM conversation.
Aaaah, beautiful photos!
That is quite an Energetic System you've put together!
As promised, some measurements using my little VNA on my received 0.1 Ohm bare metal csr (see picture 1) as used by CaptainLoz during his COP=2 measurement.
I am using the "Shunt-Thru" measurement method with the VNA as that is the preferred one for doing impedance measurements on low Impedances, see the below attached PDF.
I build a test fixture so to be able to use as a reference plane initially the csr resistor only, so not any connecting pcb traces, pins and scope (ground) leads.
For reference plane see:
https://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/373153D-01/vnahelp/reference_plane/
The screenshot-1 below shows the major values like inductance (nH), resistance (mOhm) and reactance (mOhm) of this 0.1 Ohm csr ONLY, so without PCB etc.
Sweep was from 10KHz (minimum) to 10MHz, markers at 1) 800KHz, 2) 5MHz and 3) 10MHz.
Marker 1 shows the operating frequency of the CaptainLoz device (800KHz).
It shows the inductance ("Series L" = 35nH) stays stable across the sweep frequency.
The resistance ("Series R" = 101 mOhm to 239 mOhm) shows an increase with frequency
The reactance (Z= 210 mOhm to 2.2 Ohm) shows the expected increase due to inductance/frequency.
So the values at the 800KHz working frequency shows a 2 times (210 mOhm) higher impedance then expected from this 100 mOhm csr at DC.
Something member "Picowatt" already mentioned months ago here: https://overunity.com/18617/rant-caffe-asylum/msg551145/#msg551145
So when using this csr AND when measuring the voltage DIRECTLY across it using an RF probe, then the registered voltage should be taken times 5 to correct for the 0.2 Ohm csr, NOT times 10 (for a 0.1 Ohm csr).
But.... as CaptainLoz was NOT using an RF probe, but instead a normal voltage probe with long tip and ground leads AND using a PCB with copper traces, connection pins etc. see picture 2, there will be a large extra inductance and resistance thus impedance to be accounted for, see picture 3.
The 2th screenshot then shows the values taken with such an extra PCB where the csr was mounted on and measured with a normal voltage probe/ground lead.
It shows the inductance ("Series L" = 169 to 153nH) across the sweep frequency.
The resistance ("Series R" = 136 mOhm to 2.3 Ohm) shows an increase with frequency
The reactance (Z= 874 mOhm to 9.8 Ohm) shows the expected increase due to inductance/frequency.
So at the 800KHz working frequency, the 0.1 Ohm at DC csr now measures as a 0.874 Ohm csr which is almost 9 times higher as expected.
So instead of using a 1:10 correction to compensate the scope for the 0.1 Ohm csr, we actually need to use only a 1:1.1 correction.
This could mean that the current fed into the scope math function was 9 times lower which probably will result in a 9 times lower power calculation, so instead of the calculated 38W output it should be more like (38/9=) 4.2W.
Of course there could be some differences in used probe tips/leads and pcb connection etc. so my measured value's will differ from CaptainLoz his, but it won't be much.
Hopefully when the Captain is ready to do some testing with me ( https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3951.msg85440#msg85440 ) we can sort this out and either provide me with a COP = 2 device or show the Captain where he went wrong.
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Very good and informative tests, thanks for performing them and presenting the results.
All this means that a "very carefully selected 0.1 Ohm, 1% Tolerance, Metal Strip Through Hole Resistor" cannot give correct measurement results from the some ten kHz or in the some hundred kHz frequency range and certainly not at the 800-900 kHz frequencies.
Flat wires, metal strips or any piece of wire that are about 3 cm long or longer with their connecting wires and mounted on a PCB board are inherently inductive and their inductive reactance gradually adds to the initial 0.1 Ohm DC resistance as the frequency increases.
This is valid for the Measuring Board Captainloz (or anyone else) used and got a COP > 1 result. All these results should be revisited by using a different 0.1 Ohm shunt resistor.
Gyula
QuoteHi Itsu,
Very good and informative tests, thanks for performing them and presenting the results.
All this means that a "very carefully selected 0.1 Ohm, 1% Tolerance, Metal Strip Through Hole Resistor" cannot give correct measurement results from the some ten kHz or in the some hundred kHz frequency range and certainly not at the 800-900 kHz frequencies.
Flat wires, metal strips or any piece of wire that are about 3 cm long or longer with their connecting wires and mounted on a PCB board are inherently inductive and their inductive reactance gradually adds to the initial 0.1 Ohm DC resistance as the frequency increases.
This is valid for the Measuring Board Captainloz (or anyone else) used and got a COP > 1 result. All these results should be revisited by using a different 0.1 Ohm shunt resistor.
Gyula
Thanks Gyula,
i agree and i hope the Capatian will step up the plate and join me in finding out what that means for his COP = 2
Itsu
bump
Guys:
It's sad, that it's taken this long to prove what is visually obvious, to me.
So, where do we go from here??? If our input to output tests are proving nothing...
Self running, becomes the only way to go. Or, should we still want to test for and have faith in, input to output readings???
In any case, thanks itsu for your time and dedication to this effort. It means a lot, to me.
NickZ
Hi Nick,
"where do we go from here", well, it seems Captainloz is back to asymmetrical transformer circuit testing which hopefully means he continues to work on his COP = 2 asymmetrical regauging experiment with me as promised.
Chris has released the pcb gerber files for the used csr pcb, so i ordered some as to have the same 0.1 Ohm csr measuringboard the captain uses.
If it really turns out he still has the COP = 2, then indeed the next step would be to try to loop it as a final test.
Regards itsu
Like Chris, i am getting tired of explaining, in this case what reactance does with a csr.
I have no problems with the "measurement protocol" used overthere itself, they seem sound.
Chris is right about using a good csr in a DC environment.
There, a 0.1 Ohm (100 mOhm) 1% csr is very accurate in measuring DC currents.
But he conveniently does not mention what it does when dealing with AC signals.
The captainLoz device runs at 830KHz, so surely no DC.
Lets see what this means for a high quality Johanson 100 mOhm 1% 5W csr like the RMCJ3U000R1FS from Mouser recommended by Chris:
https://nl.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Johanson-Dielectrics/RMCJ3U000R1FS/?qs=ofF%252BRbqKDcYsoVgaSsLAJA%3D%3D
The specs ( https://nl.mouser.com/datasheet/2/611/rmc-series-1074317.pdf ) say:
• Resistances from 0.005 to 0.100 Ohms
• Low Inductance (<10nH)
• Tolerances to ± 1%
• Resistance Wire TCR: ± 20ppm/ºC
• For Current Sensing and Shunt Applications
• All Welded Construction
• Economical Bare Metal Element
So inductance = <10nH, lets say 9nH (it won't be much less)
According to this inductive reactance calculator:
https://www.66pacific.com/calculators/inductive-reactance-calculator.aspx
9nH @ 830KHz = 0.05 Ohm = 50 mOhm
So at 830KHz (working frequency of CaptainLoz his device), the ADDED reactance of this csr is 50 mOhm, so the total resistance (Impedance) is 150 mOhm, which is an 50% increase.
If i would use a 1 Ohm (1000 mOhm) 1% csr, this same 50 mOhm reactance would only increase the total impedance by 5%.
But... even more important then this 50% increase in impedance of the 0.1 Ohm csr @ 830KHz is how it is measured.
When using a pcb with connections and a voltage probe like the Captain does, the reactance (and resistance) at 830KHz causes an even worse situation (900% worse) like shown earlier in this thread where i used my VNA to characterize that situation:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg85851#msg85851
Waiting for the csr pcb's the make additional measurements with my VNA.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.12.17, 11:06:32
Like Chris, i am getting tired of explaining, in this case what reactance does with a csr.
I have no problems with the "measurement protocol" used overthere itself, they seem sound.
Chris is right about using a good csr in a DC environment.
There, a 0.1 Ohm (100 mOhm) 1% csr is very accurate in measuring DC currents.
But he conveniently does not mention what it does when dealing with AC signals.
The captainLoz device runs at 830KHz, so surely no DC.
Lets see what this means for a high quality Johanson 100 mOhm 1% 5W csr like the RMCJ3U000R1FS from Mouser recommended by Chris:
https://nl.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Johanson-Dielectrics/RMCJ3U000R1FS/?qs=ofF%252BRbqKDcYsoVgaSsLAJA%3D%3D
The specs ( https://nl.mouser.com/datasheet/2/611/rmc-series-1074317.pdf ) say:
• Resistances from 0.005 to 0.100 Ohms
• Low Inductance (<10nH)
• Tolerances to ± 1%
• Resistance Wire TCR: ± 20ppm/ºC
• For Current Sensing and Shunt Applications
• All Welded Construction
• Economical Bare Metal Element
So inductance = <10nH, lets say 9nH (it won't be much less)
According to this inductive reactance calculator:
https://www.66pacific.com/calculators/inductive-reactance-calculator.aspx
9nH @ 830KHz = 0.05 Ohm = 50 mOhm
So at 830KHz (working frequency of CaptainLoz his device), the ADDED reactance of this csr is 50 mOhm, so the total resistance (Impedance) is 150 mOhm, which is an 50% increase.
If i would use a 1 Ohm (1000 mOhm) 1% csr, this same 50 mOhm reactance would only increase the total impedance by 5%.
But... even more important then this 50% increase in impedance of the 0.1 Ohm csr @ 830KHz is how it is measured.
When using a pcb with connections and a voltage probe like the Captain does, the reactance (and resistance) at 830KHz causes an even worse situation (900% worse) like shown earlier in this thread where i used my VNA to characterize that situation:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg85851#msg85851
Waiting for the csr pcb's the make additional measurements with my VNA.
Itsu
Itsu,
Good work and keep it up!
I have never understood why Chris requires the sensing resistor to be .1 ohm with all of it's attendant problems as you have attempted to point out?
In general terms, it is better to have as low a sense resistor value as possible for accuracy in certain circuits but in his POC circuit, the power loss in a 1 ohm sense resistor in the input and/or output would simply be added to the output or subtracted from the input which wouldn't affect the COP.
In fact, a non-inductive high quality load resistor equal to the operating resistance of the bulb could be used to eliminate the output sense resistor altogether and provide an extremely accurate output measurement.
Regards,
Pm
Hi Itsu and Partzman,
I agree with both of you.
Itsu, your measurement results are rock-solid and clearly show the inductive behaviour of such metal strip resistors http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/1802151.pdf and Captainloz used such (either the type this link shows or the one you just referred to) in his video 9 tests.
Even a 1 cm long piece of wire with an OD of 0.5mm has about 10 nH inductance (empirical rule of thumb in microwave engineering) and both the 0.1 Ohm CSRs (PWR4412-2S Series Bare Metal Element Resistor) from Bourns and the RMCJ3U000R1FS type from Johanson are nothing else but a rectangularly bent piece of wire, their total length being in the range from 20 mm to 49mm (decimals are neglected) as their power rating varies between 1 W to 5 W.
So do not worry whatever is said to the contrary or even against you.
Hopefully Captainloz will return and repeat his tests with a CSR which really has maximum of 3 - 4 nH inductance. 4 nH adds 0.02 Ohm reactance in series with a 0.1 Ohm csr.
Gyula
Thanks guys, lets see what is going to happen.
Itsu
Itsu,
Glad to see someone doing something energy related on this forum! I really liked your CSR sweeps. Excellent demonstration of the effect inductance has on low resistance sense resistors.
Keep in mind that another trap many fall into is with regard to a waveform's frequency content. I've stated this ad nauseum in the past, but unless a waveform is a perfect sine wave, it contains harmonics. The waveforms you posted of your OZ replication are a good case in point. A scope's trigger rate might read 830KHz, but with all the non-sinusoidal peaks and squiggles, there is obviously a large harmonic content. Just the second and third harmonics alone are going to get you up over 2.4Mc and there looks to be some fifth and a bit of seventh in there as well. Use the FFT on your scope to see this.
When the 0.1R resistor is used, the higher frequency harmonics see a significantly reduced load because the CSR's impedance is greater at those higher frequencies, hence the increase in the amplitude of higher frequency components, or "hash".
The DDS's are fast enough that they are calculating the contribution of these higher frequencies using a CSR value that can be off by a very significant amount at the higher frequencies those harmonics present.
PW
Hi Picowatt,
good to see your here.
Yes, this forum can hardly be considered as a technical one nowadays :(
Not sure what you mean by "OZ replication", but its a good reminder to keep in mind when dealing with a large harmonic content.
Regards Itsu
I received my "measuring block" pcb and was able to make some measurements using my VNA.
Below picture shows how i measured it which is how CaptainLoz also measured it using a voltage probe with ground lead to measure the voltage across the 0.1 Ohm csr @ 830KHz.
The red line shows the total measurement path taken before presenting this voltage to the scope to do some power calculations using this voltage as current.
The below graphs (screenshot 1) show the severall measured value's of this measurement path like inductance (Seriel L), Impedance (Z) and Resistance (R) (sweep 10KHz to 10MHz).
At 809KHz (the working frequency of the CaptainLoz device) see the red marker, we have:
Inductance L = 174nH
Resistance R = 232 mOhm
Impedance Z = 915 mOhm
So the voltage measured across the csr is not only from the 100 mOhm resistor, but 9 times higher from a 915 mOhm one <<<<<<< This is wrong, we cannot add this extra 700 mOhm to the csr!!
Therefor the compensation for the scope to do its power calculations should not be 1:10 , but only 1:1.1 instead. <<<<<<< This is wrong, we cannot add this extra 700 mOhm to the csr!!
To compare, screenshot 2 shows the graphs of the 100 mOhm csr ALONE, so without pcb, connection leads and scope voltage probe leads.
Again at 809KHz (the working frequency of the CaptainLoz device) see the red marker, we have:
Inductance L = 35nH
Resistance R = 101 mOhm
Impedance Z = 210 mOhm
So the values at the 800KHz working frequency shows an already 2 times (210 mOhm) higher impedance then expected from this 100 mOhm csr at DC.
So when using an RF probe tip directly across the csr resistor this might be the better method needed to do proper power measurement, but even then the impedance at 800Khz is already
twice the value of the 100 mOhm csr at DC (210 mOhm), so not a 1:10 compensation but a 1:5 compensation for power calculations is needed.
Itsu
Itsu,
Again, excellent work! The results speak for themselves as they explain the "gain" mechanism of Captain Loz's device.
I know Chris speaks very highly of their measurement protocols on the AU forum but he would be wise to heed what you have published.
Regards,
Pm
Commendations Itsu! Excellent analysis. Brilliant detail.
I agree with Partzman. This documented discovery of yours is worthy of widespread proliferation.
Hi Itsu,
Great tests, thanks for sharing. I would not be surprised if the silence continues on the other side on your recent measurement results with the metal strip resistor and the Measurement Board.
Greetings
Gyula
Thanks guys, i won't be surpised myself Gyula.
I PMed CaptainLoz to take a look here, will see what happens.
Itsu
I got some responses on the AU forum on my reactance measurements.
The responses made, about when in resonance loosing reactance etc., are irrelevant imho as the csr is not in resonance so won't loose its reactances.
Again, i am replicating / commenting ONLY on the CaptainLoz device which runs at 830KHz, so therefor i am using this frequency for my measurement tests.
I pointed out where CapatainLoz might went wrong and am waiting for him to show up and do some tests with me.
Itsu
Quote from: muDped on 2020.12.23, 23:33:38
Commendations Itsu! Excellent analysis. Brilliant detail.
I agree with Partzman. This documented discovery of yours is worthy of widespread proliferation.
Agreed, and I would not be surprised either, if Captainloz does not reply, or confirm the measurement error.
NickZ
Itsu,
Chris is not correct in his network analysis when an inductive CSR is used to measure a resonant circuit while in resonance. The attached simulation proves the point.
Here we see a .10 ohm CSR with 35nH of inductance as you have measured. With a frequency of 800kHz, the current in Lres is 383.52ma rms which should produce a voltage of 38.352mv across .10 ohms. However, we see the the voltage across the CSR is 776.11/10 = 77.611mv rms (the plot voltage is 10x for clarity).
Thus, the error just from the inductive .100 ohm CSR is 77.611/38.352 = 2.02 times the real value. This doesn't include any other inductive pickup errors from long circuit leads such as the scope probe ground lead as you pointed out.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.12.29, 15:44:10
...
The responses made, about when in resonance loosing reactance etc., are irrelevant imho as the csr is not in resonance so won't loose its reactances.
...
Hi Itsu,
I agree with you and Partzman, the inductive nature of a csr remains valid and this manifests in the increasing AC
voltage drop across its terminals A and B as the frequency increases, see the attached circuit schema below.
It is okay that the total circuit can be tuned to its new resonant frequency when we apply an inductive csr in the circuit. The new frequency can be very close to the previous one.
This is because the metal strip resistor has 35 nH as you found while the L coil (labeled as L2 in Captainloz's video 9 may have at least some ten uH inductance.
At this new resonant frequency
the generator current will be in phase with the generator voltage BUT the voltage across points A and B will not be in phase with the generator current at all. How much phase offset is created depends on the value of L
s, the inductive part of the csr, of course. And how much the voltage increase would amount to can be calculated by considering the inductive reactance of L
s at the resonant frequency and then one can use the impedance formula for a series R
s L
s circuit applied for the csr.
So the combined L+L
s and C reactances do disappear
BUT ONLY FROM the GENERATOR POINT OF VIEW, the inductive reactance of Ls does remain between points A and B. This is what increases the voltage drop across the csr and then this increased voltage (combined with the voltage drop of the real part of the csr) is measured by the probe of an oscilloscope.
The inductive part, L
s of the csr creates a V
Ls = I x X
Ls voltage amplitude where X
Ls = 2Pi x f x L
s and I is the generator current at resonance.
All this boils down to this: your measurements shown and deductions you wrote in your Reply #735 https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg86553;topicseen#msg86553 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg86553;topicseen#msg86553) above remains fully valid and Captainloz should revisit his COP 2 claim which he got by using an inductive csr (in his Measuring Board).
Gyula
Hi Guys,
PM, thanks, this nicely confirms my real life measurement that my 100 mOhm csr at 800KHz has an impedance of 210 mOhm (so twice its value at DC).
Gyula, thanks, i know Chris is wrong with his comment about the csr loosing its reactance when measuring current (voltage) in a series LC at resonance.
Its true for the whole LC, the reactances cancel out each other, but like you said, the reactance of the individual components L, C and our R do NOT go away magically at resonance, see picture below where XC and XL keep on decreasing / increasing with frequency during and after resonance.
So the impedance due to the inductive reactance of our csr still continues to grow with frequency despite its in a resonante LC circuit.
But it obviously is useless to further point this out to him, so i won't.
Regards Itsu
I was trying to make a video showing how the extra inductance/reactance of a voltage probe with ground lead measuring a csr adds impedance to this csr, but i cannot as the extra amplitude from this extra impedance did NOT show up on the scope.
My vna showed that a 100 mOhm csr (at DC) measured on its own, increases its impedance (resistance plus reactance) at 830KHz to more then double to 232 mOhm.
This still holds.
My VNA also showed that this same 100 mOhm csr mounted on a pcb now measured using a voltage probe with ground lead etc. adds another 700 mOhm of impedance to this, totalling 915 mOhm of impedance at 830KHz of this 100 mOhm csr.
This partially holds, but the part of "adding this extra impedance to the csr" is WRONG.......
we CANNOT add this extra 700 mOhm to the csr total as it is not carrying the current going through the csr.
We should ONLY add the extra impedance created by the inductance/reactance of the current carrying csr, meaning a total of 232 mOhm.
This is still more then twice the original 100 mOhm at DC, so something to take into account.
To get to compensate for this for using power measurements, the scope needs to translate this 232 mOhm by a factor of 1:4.3 (so not 1:10 for a 100 mOhm csr).
The below picture in which i showed in red the path of the extra inductance is still there, but will NOT influence the current measurement hence the red cross.
Apologies to anyone who might have been confused.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2021.01.09, 11:08:33
The below picture in which i showed in red the path of the extra inductance is still there, but will NOT influence the current measurement hence the red cross.
Apologies to anyone who might have been confused.
Regards Itsu
Itsu,
I agree with you in regards to the extra inductance of the scope probe ground lead however, this same ground lead is an antenna at 800kHz! This results in the virtual ground as seen by the probe, to be above or below the actual ground on the CSR. This too can lead to increased measurement errors. That is why Tek includes the spring ground clip to measure HF circuitry as you well know.
I had to chuckle at a comment left on AU by one of the members that expensive scopes should surely compensate for parasitic inductance and capacitance. They do but only for the particular probes used. The circuit they are connected to is the responsibility of the user regarding these parasitics. It doesn't matter if the scope costs $500 or $5000, they are all the same in this regard!
Regards,
Pm
Hi Itsu,
Thanks for pointing out this mistake I did not notice it either, my bad also.
However, this mistake DOES not undermine the fact that the 0.1 metal strip csr has the 35 nH inductance (practically a piece of wire) and at the 830 kHz test frequency may cause the COP=2 result Captainloz reported.
Partzman did not consider in his Spice simulation the scope probe ground lead inductance so his simulation remains also fully valid as do your all measurement done on several 1 Ohm and 0,1 Ohm resistors, including where you used your current probe.
In fact, I find it a much bigger mistake to attempt to explain away the inductive behaviour of the 0.1 Ohm csr by claiming that it disappears at resonance!
Correct measurements and simulation show of course that is not the case! And all the inductive and capacitive reactances of the individual components in the circuit "disappear" only from the AC source point of view: the AC current taken out from the source is in phase with the AC voltage the source provides as I already mentioned earlier in Reply 743 https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg86555#msg86555
Gyula
PS edited for clarity
Thanks Guys.
What i did find out is that the relative high inductance of this specific 0.1 Ohm csr (@ 800KHz 35nH) is causing a phase shift of up to 40° at 800KHz making it unreliable for power calculations at that frequency.
For testing this phase shift offset i set up a simple circuit consisting of my battery operated FG, a 100 Ohm 1% inductionfree resistor as load and the both csr's (1 and 0.1 Ohm) see diagram below.
As the point of these csr's is to do current measurement for power calculation of the load any (false) phase offset will lead to erroneous power measurements
The below screenshot shows:
green: current probe signal
yellow: voltage across load (100 Ohm)
blue: voltage across 1 Ohm csr
purple: voltage across 0.1 Ohm csr (40° phase offset leading @ 1MHz)
red: calculated power across load
Video here: https://youtu.be/y0jtW-tJgYw
It shows that with increasing frequency from 10KHz to 1MHz, the current probe signal (green), the voltage signal across the load (yellow) and the voltage signal across the 1 Ohm csr stays "in phase".
The voltage signal across the 0.1 Ohm csr (purple) however slowly offset till about a 40° phase difference leading compared to the other signals.
This 40° phase shift due to the inductive behaviour of this specific 0.1 Ohm csr will render any power calculation at this frequency useless.
Regards itsu
While waiting for CaptainLoz to respond i found another thread on AU.com in which member John made an seemingly successful replication of a circuit called "Non-Inductive Coil Experiment" which seems to be the basic circuit for creating "above unity".
His thread is called "John's Non-Inductive Coil Experiment" and is linked here:
https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/john-s-non-inductive-coil-experiment/?order=all#comment-1e61d9ea-991e-4062-ab21-ac990164a1d5
I say successfull as the first comment on his result started with:
QuoteHi John,
Thank You for Sharing! You have achieved the Goal! Congratulations! You have everything right!
So i replicated what John has done, see HIS diagram and what i came up with (see picture):
Amorphous transformer core AMCC200
L1 15 turns 1mm over L2
L2 225 turns 0.8mm
L3 225 turns 0.8mm
PS input 12V
FG 6KHz square wave 10% duty cycle
L2 bulb is 12V/5W and bright.
The below screenshot shows the current in the L3 circuit (green) and shows the so called "sawtooth waveform" which seems to be an indication for above unity as the current continues after the MOSFET goes off until the next cycle (current rushing in from the ambient!?).
Purple signal is the MOSFET gate signal.
Itsu
EDIT I added an additional picture of this setup, see last picture
Once again, excellent work Itsu!
Your waveform display is exceptionally clean. You've managed to focus
right in on the circuit of interest without the transients and ringing that
often plague pulse driven circuits.
What I see in your waveform analysis is the "Secret" of the Switching Power
Supply. The "Charging" followed by "Discharging" of the Inductor or Transformer
into a "Load" for a specific Time Constant.
An example of "Dis-Continuous" output.
Very nice!
Itsu
QuoteThe below screenshot shows the current in the L3 circuit (green) and shows the so called "sawtooth waveform" which seems to be an indication for above unity as the current continues after the MOSFET goes off until the next cycle (current rushing in from the ambient!?).
Purple signal is the MOSFET gate signal.
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.
We can see the mosfet gate signal however we cannot see the the input power waveform to the coil, volts x amps. We can also see the output coil current but not the output power, volts x amps. Thus we have no indication of the input/output power or COP because the data is incomplete.
If the input voltage and frequency are set then I would measure/datalog the input power and output power then superimpose the two waveforms to get a better indication of the efficiency.
Another issue is that L3 isn't even the load circuit which makes the data that much more ambiguous.
Regards
AC
Thanks MuDped,
so there is a "secret" there, but probably not the one meant by the aboveunity.com forum :D
AC,
its not my reasoning, its just a replication of a replication from a basic above unity device from the aboveunity.com forum.
There it is stated that you have reached the goal (above unity?) when you are able to show the sawtooth waveform in the L3 circuit.
It suppose to indicate that extra current is rushing in from the ambient and thus have reached "above unity".
Strange is that of the many members who have succeeded to show this sawtooth waveform in the L3 circuit nobody has bothered to check the input against output.
Most of them just stop posting as if they really have reached the goal.
Well not here, as i just finished making input output measurements while having extra current rushing in from the ambient! (the sawtooth waveform)
Regards Itsu
Concerning my replication of "John's Non-Inductive Coil Experiment", i reached the goal of having the sawtooth waveform in the L3 circuit.
But does this mean i have reached "above unity" without any decent measurements?
Not in my book, so i have maintained this L3 sawtooth waveform while powering a 12V/5W bulb in L2 and made some input versus output measurements.
Below screenshot 1 shows the voltage (purple), current (green) and power (red) signals across this 12V/5W bulb in L2 (the load), so we have 5W output there.
And no, this 5W is NOT also available in the L3 circuit as we have no load there.
Screenshot 2 shows the voltage (purple), current (green) and power (red) signals into L1 BEFORE the filter circuit, so very close to what the PS delivers, so we have 7.3W input there.
Screenshot 3 shows the voltage (purple), current (green) and power (red) signals into L1 AFTER the filter circuit, so the real signals into L1, so we have also 7.5W input there, but less accurate due to the nasty spikes reaching 450V.
A video of my measurements is here: https://youtu.be/UpSkoW0u7cY
So the COP then comes to 5W output, 7.3W input = 5/7.3 = 0.68
Changing the frequency, duty cycle, input voltage, etc. does not show any significant changes up till now.
Regards itsu
Itsu
QuoteThere it is stated that you have reached the goal (above unity?) when you are able to show the sawtooth waveform in the L3 circuit.
It suppose to indicate that extra current is rushing in from the ambient and thus have reached "above unity".
Thanks for the explanation.
I was wondering what you were up to, lol. There is no way you would fall for such an amateur mistake like they did.
QuoteStrange is that of the many members who have succeeded to show this sawtooth waveform in the L3 circuit nobody has bothered to check the input against output. Most of them just stop posting as if they really have reached the goal.
I would agree, it's mind boggling.
Excellent work on your last post and the scope plots are exactly what I would expect to see from my experience.
Regards
AC
Thanks, its good to know that what we see is as expected like the data also indicate.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2021.01.15, 21:48:25
Concerning my replication of "John's Non-Inductive Coil Experiment", i reached the goal of having the sawtooth waveform in the L3 circuit.
But does this mean i have reached "above unity" without any decent measurements?
Not in my book, so i have maintained this L3 sawtooth waveform while powering a 12V/5W bulb in L2 and made some input versus output measurements.
Below screenshot 1 shows the voltage (purple), current (green) and power (red) signals across this 12V/5W bulb in L2 (the load), so we have 5W output there.
And no, this 5W is NOT also available in the L3 circuit as we have no load there.
Screenshot 2 shows the voltage (purple), current (green) and power (red) signals into L1 BEFORE the filter circuit, so very close to what the PS delivers, so we have 7.3W input there.
Screenshot 3 shows the voltage (purple), current (green) and power (red) signals into L1 AFTER the filter circuit, so the real signals into L1, so we have also 7.5W input there, but less accurate due to the nasty spikes reaching 450V.
A video of my measurements is here: https://youtu.be/UpSkoW0u7cY
So the COP then comes to 5W output, 7.3W input = 5/7.3 = 0.68
Changing the frequency, duty cycle, input voltage, etc. does not show any significant changes up till now.
Regards itsu
Itsu,
This agrees with the results that I was able to achieve in all my replications of the POC!
Pm
Thanks PM,
thats good to know.
I wonder how many of the members there who have reached the sawtooth goal also have found that out.
Itsu
So the COP is known (0.68), but what about this "aiding of L1 by L3" statement found here:
https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/non-inductive-coil-experiment-replication/?order=all#comment-1de20447-5fd9-4f6d-910f-abc1016e842a
QuoteThe Answer is: Action, Reaction and Counter-Reaction.
Action:
Primary Coil Creates a Disturbance in the Vacuum.
Reaction:
The Secondary Coil Opposes this Disturbance, Lenz's Law.
Counter-Reaction:
The Tertiary Coil then opposes the Secondary Coil, Lenz's Law again, but this time, not opposing the Primary, opposing the Secondary, an Assistive Force to the Primary.
We must realise, every Coil has a Reaction Force, this is seen as a Dual Wave Structure:
Incoming Wave, to create a Disturbance in the Conductive Mass.
A Reactionary Wave, Out Going, Lenz's Law Effect, Newton's Laws of Motion, "For every Action there is an Equal and opposite Reaction".
We now, using Asymmetry, changed the Laws, now having Action, Reaction and Counter-Reaction. Showing the way around Newton's Laws of Motion, no longer being a Law, only a reasonably accurate description.
So i measured L1 current and switched off / on the L3 circuit, see video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbJZNxrARn4&feature=youtu.be
Oeps, i had the current probe wrongly attached, see below corrected screenshot with white the L1 current when L3 closed and overlayed in green the L1 current when L3 open.
So when L3 is closed (active), the effect on L1 current is that it drops from 2.057A to 1.991A which is 66mA or by 3.2%.
So indeed L3 is aiding L1, but by a marginal extent.
Perhaps there is more to squeeze out of it, but nothing magically will happen i think.
Regards Itsu
Itsu
Been getting persons asking me about above u forum
Have you heard anything?
Apparently there are issues still ?
I did ask jimB if he could check and see that things are OK
Will make some calls tomorrow to members who should be able to reach him!
Perhaps a note to Loz?
( some are very worried)
Sorry to post this here without asking
I can move if you wish
Thx
Chet
EDIT for below
Yes this is what I have been telling persons it probably is update issues!
One person did mention no YouTube responses either from him ?
Thx again .... I will make some calls regardless
Hi Chet,
What i know is that the AU forum was planned to have an update starting at 17 Jan. and was planned to last a "few days".
But there also have seem to come up a server hosting issue which could have extended this "few days" untill a new hosting platform was found, so a week or weeks.
I am sure the forum will be up as soon as things are sorted out over there.
Regards Itsu
Bumping this thread so the AU.com members can have something to compare about the "sawtooth waveform" experiments.
Itsu
Using my "workbench / placeholder" thread for showing some pictures / screenshots of some nano-pulsers.
Below picture is from my "Dally" nano-pulser using similar components as Dally used in his famous circuit.
The KT926 transistor and the bulky KD203 diodes.
The screenshot 1 (SC 2 without databox) shows the nano-pulse in yellow (998Vpp @ 5ns) and in blue the voltage across a 0.1 Ohm 1% induction-free csr in series with the DSR diode (KD203)
Itsu
Here another more "state of the art" nano-pulser using a MOSFET.
The screenshot 1 again shows the nano-pulse voltage (yellow) as 1.8KV @ 7ns and the current through the DSR diode (P600) in white.
I cannot scope the both traces at the same time as the voltage across the 0.1 Ohm resistor is rather high (348Vpp across a 0.1 Ohm csr means 3.48KApp)
EDIT:
Screenshot 2 is the current through the 0.1 Ohm csr (with corrected (real) value) in blue, together with the peak voltage across the 50 Ohm load.
I now used a RF probe tip across the 0.1 Ohm csr to reduce inductive interference.
The reason i here used a 0.1 Ohm csr is because this setup requires one.
The voltage across this 0.1 Ohm csr (using the RF probe tip) already was 162Vpp.
If using a 1 Ohm csr, that voltage would be 1620V which is more then my used probe/scope can handle.
I was not trying to measure any power, i just was asked to show the current waveform through the DSR diode in a nano-pulser, which i did.
Calculating the power in that nano-pulse is done using the P=U²/R formula (P=1800²/50, P=64800W =64.8kW).
I was looking into the hysteresis response of some of my yokes (3).
I used this setup: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm#hysteresis (instead of the 22 Ohm csr i used my current probe).
This seems to be the so called "integration method" which uses an indirect measurement of the magnetic induction also shown here: https://meettechniek.info/passive/magnetic-hysteresis.html
Be aware that verpies mentioned that this method "can have so many error modes" (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4231.msg96873#msg96873)
Anyway, its easily done and could perhaps show some differences in the used ferrites.
I compare 3 yokes with these 2 known toroids;
# finemet FT-3K50TS https://www.hilltech.com/pdf/Hitachi/Datasheets/FINEMET_CMC_Core_FT-3K50T_F_Series.pdf
# T107/65/18-3F4 https://www.acalbfi.com/se/media/UK_PMA_T107_65_18-3F4_DS?pegId=productDetails&product=000000013F
Below are the used toroids / yokes and their hysteresis response together with some data.
I used my FG and an audio amplifier at 200Hz.
Looking at the yokes, there seems to be not a great difference which is as to be expected i think.
Be noted that there is no air gap in between the yokes half's (tightly clamped together using electrical tape.
Also the "Yoke glued" has an broken half which was glued together perhaps causing some different result.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.02, 10:59:49
This seems to be the so called "integration method" which uses an indirect measurement of the magnetic induction also shown here: https://meettechniek.info/passive/magnetic-hysteresis.html
Does your Tek scope have a math function "integrate" ?
If it does, the measurement can be simplified even more.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.02, 10:59:49
I used my FG and an audio amplifier at 200Hz.
Does that amplifier have 4Ω output impedance ?
What is the input impedance of your DUTs when you measure their inductance with your LCR meter and use the X
L=2πfL formula with it ?
Did you tailor the 200Hz to maximize the MPTT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem#Maximizing_power_transfer_versus_power_efficiency) ?
Quote from: verpies on 2022.01.02, 16:16:23
Does your Tek scope have a math function "integrate" ?
If it does, the measurement can be simplified even more.
Yes it does.
QuoteDoes that amplifier have 4Ω output impedance ?
What is the input impedance of your DUTs when you measure their inductance with your LCR meter and use the XL=2πfL formula with it ?
Yes, that amplifier has 4 Ohm output impedance, and i use a 4.7 Ohm resistor in series with the dut
Using that formula i get 2.1 Ohm reactance (1700uH @ 200Hz) on Yoke R
QuoteDid you tailor the 200Hz to maximize the MPTT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem#Maximizing_power_transfer_versus_power_efficiency) ?
No, but will look into that (guess i need a 1.9 Ohm series resistor to match the 4 Ohm output impedance of the amplifier).
Higher current flowing in the DUT is better because it allows it to be driven into saturation and to observe at how many ampturns the saturation actually occurs - a more complete BH curve all in all.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.02, 16:36:12
No, but will look into that (guess i need a 1.9 Ohm series resistor to match the 4 Ohm output impedance of the amplifier).
A resistor will not increase the power transfer.
...but a matching impedance will.
The impedance of your DUT increases with frequency. Also see
this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem#In_reactive_circuits).
Right, but as we are using a fixed frequency (200Hz) the DUT impedance will be fixed also (2.1 Ohm in this case).
So i need to match the 4 Ohm amplifier output impedance with the 2.1 Ohm impedance @ 200Hz of the DUT.
QuoteHigher current flowing in the DUT is better because it allows you drive it into saturation and observe at how many ampturns the saturation actually occurs - a more complete BH curve all in all.
I try to have the input current waveform undistorted (sine wave), so limit this input current to get that.
I added a 3rd yoke to my post #765 above (Yoke U).
This "yoke U" is the big yoke i used up till now on my latest Ruslan replication.
By the way, the forum is very sluggish today, i receive some time outs also lately......
Itsu
Itsu and others have you tried when winding some thing like the yoke or torroid experimented adding turns as well as over the out side and back through the inside as per normal but also putting a few turns horizontal around the out side ie at 90 deg thus creating a vortex within the magnetic field.
Regards Sil
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2022.01.02, 22:28:40
Itsu and others have you tried when winding some thimg like the yoke or toroid experimentited adding turns as well as over the out side and back through the inside as per normal but also putting a few turns horizontal around the out side ie at 90 deg thus creating a vortex within the magetic field.
For this, that extra winding would need to be driven with current at 90º phase in addition to its 90º physical orientation.
Anyway, I think that Itsu is just after a nice BH curve measurement here.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.02, 16:36:12
Yes it does.
So if your XY mode can use that
integrating math channel as a source for its Y axis, then you can delete the integrating RC network and connect the scope directly to the secondary winding.
See
this video (https://youtu.be/4UFKl9fULkA?t=2098).
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.02, 17:41:58
So i need to match the 4 Ohm amplifier output impedance with the 2.1 Ohm impedance @ 200Hz of the DUT.
Why not match the -4Ω amplifier output impedance with the +4Ω impedance of the DUT @ e.g 400 Hz ?
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.02, 17:41:58
I try to have the input current waveform undistorted (sine wave), so limit this input current to get that.
The sine shape does not matter in XY mode.
Personally, I like the symmetrical triangle current waveform flowing through the primary because it creates constant ±d
Fm/dt in the primary and constant induced ±EMF in the secondary when the core is not saturating.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.02, 17:41:58
By the way, the forum is very sluggish today, i receive some time outs also lately......
For me, too. Maybe Peter is finally working on the SMF code and updating the DB.
Quote from: verpies on 2022.01.02, 23:03:01
For this, that extra winding would need to be driven with current at 90º phase in addition to its 90º physical orientation.
Anyway, I think that Itsu is just after a nice BH curve measurement here.
No on the yoke you already have 2 windings driven by the Mos-Fets you eather need to advance/delay one phase 90 deg
D smith does this on his neon inverter the novice always ignors this trick, or use a four phase clock to make a rotory vortex a TL494 is an inveter driver at 180 deg,
some motor drivers are four phase.
Also re the nano pulser has a coax cable to set that up as a telecom eng you first need terminate the cable and tune its length then you need to open circuit it or short circuit it to produce standing waves.
Also be aware this post needs deleating once read.
Sil
Quote from: verpies on 2022.01.03, 00:08:56
So if your XY mode can use that integrating math channel as a source for its Y axis, then you can delete the integrating RC network and connect the scope directly to the secondary winding.
See this video (https://youtu.be/4UFKl9fULkA?t=2098).
Why not match the -4Ω amplifier output impedance with the +4Ω impedance of the DUT @ e.g 400 Hz ?
The sine shape does not matter in XY mode.
Personally, I like the symmetrical triangle current waveform flowing through the primary because it creates constant ±dFm/dt in the primary and constant induced ±EMF in the secondary when the core is not saturating.
For me, too. Maybe Peter is finally working on the SMF code and updating the DB.
Question; it wasn't me who brought S M F up, so what is it? :( :o
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2022.01.03, 11:22:53
what is S M F sesin manager function ? single mode function ? :o
Talk to Peterae about it. Not here.
Currently this thread really is not about rotating magnetic fields.
It is about measuring the BH curve.
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2022.01.03, 10:59:22
No on the yoke you already have 2 windings driven by the Mos-Fets you eather need to advance/delay one phase 90 deg
This "advance/delay" is what I meant by driving "at 90º phase".
Also, not all windings are always wound orthogonally to each other, so this needs to be explicitly stated.
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2022.01.03, 10:59:22
D smith does this on his neon inverter the novice always ignores this trick,
Please make a thread about this trick. I will gladly reply to it there.
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2022.01.03, 10:59:22
...or use a four phase clock to make a rotory vortex a TL494 is an inveter driver at 180 deg,
Itsu and I really do not need to build any custom circuits to generate two waveforms which are 90º out of phase, because we have signal generators that do it out of the box.
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2022.01.03, 10:59:22
Also re the nano pulser has a coax cable to set that up as a telecom eng you first need terminate the cable and tune its length then you need to open circuit it or short circuit it to produce standing waves.
Standing waves in coax cables are generated by CW and imperfect terminations. Perfect termination will prevent reflections from the end of the cable. No reflections = no standing waves.
Nanopulsers will not generate standing waves even in imperfectly terminated coaxial cables because their Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF) is too low.
Again, nanopulsers are yet another topic which has nothing to do with measuring the BH curve here.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.02, 16:36:12
Yes, that amplifier has 4 Ohm output impedance, and i use a 4.7 Ohm resistor in series with the dut
Itsu,
Are you confusing the amplifier's "output rating" with its "output impedance"?
Most solid state audio amplifiers specified to drive a 4R load have an output impedance 20 to 400 times less than that (which is the amplifier's "damping factor").
When used as you are, a resistor between the amp output and load is often used to protect the amplifier and ensure the amplifier output never sees a load less than the 4R the amp is rated to drive. Although you can eliminate this resistor and drive your load directly from the amp output to take advantage of the very low output impedance of the amplifier, you must ensure you stay well within the amp's max power rating and reactive load drive capability (SOA). Loads with a complex impedance, particularly capacitive loads, can cause some amp's to oscillate/destroy themselves. The resistor between amp out and the load is used to limit the load impedance and prevent the amp from having a bad day.
PW
Itsu Hi, and thank you Verpies detailing coax and it's use in comms and function, Therefore; Itsu could you please delete my recent posts of this particular subject or thread as I don't want to disrupt your sequence of posting and I'm aware and note Verpies comments as I already know this as telecom TX lines was one of the subjects covered in my youth, but thanks for the refresh !
^-^ O0
sil
verpies,
QuoteSo if your XY mode can use that integrating math channel as a source for its Y axis, then you can delete the integrating RC network and connect the scope directly to the secondary winding.
See this video.
Nice video, which cleared up some things for me.
I will try the integrating math setup to see if it works on my scope as well, but my main goal is to "see" any difference in BH curve in my presently used "yoke U" (which is not working for me), and any of the other yokes.
Looks like the "Yoke U" and "yoke glued" are similar and the "yoke R" gives a smaller BH curve, so i think i will use that yoke as new yoke in my Ruslan setup.
QuoteWhy not match the -4Ω amplifier output impedance with the +4Ω impedance of the DUT @ e.g 400 Hz ?
Why did i not think of that, ok, i can try upping the frequency to 400Hz for the "Yoke U"
For the "Yoke R" which measures 633uH i need 1KHz to get a 4 Ohm impedance
QuoteThe sine shape does not matter in XY mode.
Personally, I like the symmetrical triangle current waveform flowing through the primary because it creates constant ±dFm/dt in the primary and constant induced ±EMF in the secondary when the core is not saturating.
Good to know, so i can push some more current in the yokes.
Itsu
Quote from: picowatt on 2022.01.03, 15:24:55
Itsu,
Are you confusing the amplifier's "output rating" with its "output impedance"?
Most solid state audio amplifiers specified to drive a 4R load have an output impedance 20 to 400 times less than that (which is the amplifier's "damping factor").
When used as you are, a resistor between the amp output and load is often used to protect the amplifier and ensure the amplifier output never sees a load less than the 4R the amp is rated to drive. Although you can eliminate this resistor and drive your load directly from the amp output to take advantage of the very low output impedance of the amplifier, you must ensure you stay well within the amp's max power rating and reactive load drive capability (SOA). Loads with a complex impedance, particularly capacitive loads, can cause some amp's to oscillate/destroy themselves. The resistor between amp out and the load is used to limit the load impedance and prevent the amp from having a bad day.
PW
Hi Picowatt,
I don't think i confuse the amplifier's "output rating" with its "output impedance".
The amp has 2 channels capable of driving a 4 Ohm load, so i guess it will have 4 Ohm output impedance (https://www.caraudio.com/threads/us-amps-xterminator-xt800-2.560707/)
Anyway, i followed the setup's as mentioned in my post #765 above link where this was mentioned:
https://meettechniek.info/passive/magnetic-hysteresis.html
specially cores with a low permeability need a large number of turns.
To reduce this large number of turns the drive signal can be boosted with an audio amplifier.
So a larger drive current is available.
Connect in series with the amplifier a power resistor with a value of 4 Ω to protect the amplifier.
So yes, "The resistor between amp out and the load is used to limit the load impedance and prevent the amp from having a bad day".
Itsu
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2022.01.03, 15:48:11
Itsu Hi, can you please delete my posts of this thread as i don't want to disrupt your sequence of posting And i'm aware of your comments already I trained on telecom tx lines in my youth thanks O0
sil
AG, you should be able to remove your own posts, see lower right part of that post, thanks.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.03, 16:00:09
I don't think i confuse the amplifier's "output rating" with its "output impedance".
The amp has 2 channels capable of driving a 4 Ohm load, so i guess it will have 4 Ohm output impedance (rated for 800W each).
Itsu,
It does indeed sound like you are confusing the amplifier's "output rating" with its "output impedance". If the amplifier's spec sheet provides the damping factor while driving a 4R load, you can divide the 4R by the damping factor to get an approximation of the amp's output impedance.
An amplifier rated for 800 watts into 4 ohms is very likely going to have an output impedance of around .05 to .01 ohms.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on 2022.01.03, 16:17:37
If the amplifier's spec sheet provides the damping factor while driving a 4R load, you can divide the 4R by the damping factor to get an approximation of the amp's output impedance.
Good point! I did not think about that.
That's actually good news because the lower the amp's output impedance the better.
Damping factor seems to be 250, see below (from manual pdf attached)
So does that mean 4R / 250 = 0.016 Ohm?
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.03, 16:34:33
So does that mean 4R / 250 = 0.016 Ohm?
Yes...
Just be aware that some amps become unstable when driving loads/complex loads with an impedance lower than the amp is specified to drive (particularly capacitive loads).
The data sheet says your amp can drive 100 watts per channel into 4R and 200 watts per channel into 2R. The data sheet also says the amp can drive 1R, but does not state the max power level at that load impedance.
You can probably get away with using a .25R to 1R resistor in series with your load to protect the amp, although that .25R to 1R resistance effectively becomes the output impedance as seen by the load.
PW
Also, a digital amplifier (half bridge or full-H bridge) is easily realizable with good modern MOSFETS and can cheaply be made more powerful than an analog amplifier.
Such amplifiers are digital voltage sources, meaning that they apply a rectangular voltage waveform to the load.
This is quite a good match when the load is purely inductive because it results in triangular current flowing through the inductor when it is not saturating.
The rising edge of this current is depicted on the diagram below:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=42639)
The downward curving of the blue current waveform is an indication that the driving frequency is too low (this should be avoided as it affects the measurement accuracy).
The upward curving of the red current waveform is an indication of core saturation but it does not need to be avoided in the XY mode as it does not affect the shape of the BH curve. It only presents overcurrent damage danger to the driving MOSFETs. It can be mitigated with the typical overcurrent protection techniques.
Quote from: picowatt on 2022.01.03, 16:53:56
Yes...
Just be aware that some amps become unstable when driving loads/complex loads with an impedance lower than the amp is specified to drive (particularly capacitive loads).
The data sheet says your amp can drive 100 watts per channel into 4R and 200 watts per channel into 2R. The data sheet also says the amp can drive 1R, but does not state the max power level at that load impedance.
You can probably get away with using a .25R to 1R resistor in series with your load to protect the amp, although that .25R to 1R resistance effectively becomes the output impedance as seen by the load.
PW
Thanks PW,
i think i will keep 0.25 Ohm or so resistor in series just to be sure.
Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2022.01.03, 18:21:19
Also, a digital amplifier (half bridge or full-H bridge) is easily realizable with good modern MOSFETS and can cheaply be made more powerful than an analog amplifier.
Such amplifiers are digital voltage sources, meaning that they apply a rectangular voltage waveform to the load.
This is quite a good match when the load is purely inductive because it results in triangular current flowing through the inductor when it is not saturating.
The rising edge of this current is depicted on the diagram below:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=42639)
The downward curving of the blue current waveform is an indication that the driving frequency is too low (this should be avoided as it affects the measurement accuracy).
The upward curving of the red current waveform is an indication of core saturation but it does not need to be avoided in the XY mode as it does not affect the shape of the BH curve. It only presents overcurrent damage danger to the driving MOSFETs. It can be mitigated with the typical overcurrent protection techniques.
thanks,
lots of digital D-class amplifiers with H-bridge designs on the web indeed.
Itsu
I tried to use that integrating math channel "Intg(CH3 + CH4)" as a source for the Y axis but by scope won't accept that in XY mode :(
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.03, 21:03:41
I tried to use that integrating math channel "Intg(CH3 + CH4)" as a source for the Y axis but by scope won't accept that in XY mode :(
It is a scope limitation. If it is caused by shortsighted firmware then it still could be fixed.
I am on the latest FW for this scope, so i guess its a limitation of the scope.
Using the "yoke R" (633uH @ 200Hz is 0.795 ohms) without any series resistor at 200Hz shows the below BH curve.
Input into the audio amp was 12.3V @ 3.2A.
This BH curve is the smallest of my 3 yokes and way smaller then the BH curve of the till now used "yoke U".
This means to me that the coercive force is small pointing to a softer ferromagnetic material then the "yoke U" ferrite, and thus lower losses.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.03, 21:44:57
This means to me that the coercive force is small pointing to a softer ferromagnetic material then the "yoke U" ferrite, and thus lower losses.
Yes, at least at this frequency.
I will see if i can increase the frequency to working (24KHz) frequency level.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.04, 10:20:16
I will see if i can increase the frequency to working (24KHz) frequency level.
Since it takes time for the current in an inductor to rise, at 120x higher frequency, the current will reach only 1/120 of the previous current level, which most likely will not be enough time to reach the ferrite saturation level ...and the BH curve will appear incomplete.
Of course this lack of time can be compensated with higher voltage at the amplifier's output but I don't think you can alter that in your analog amp.
It is useful to have a HV digital amplifier in a lab for this and many other purposes.
Yes, a digital amp can output only rectangular voltage waveforms but it can do this at high frequency, voltage and current, when it is based on the modern SiC MOSFETs (like your NVH4L160N120SC1) and gate drivers.
I find the Full Bridge topology most convenient to use (albeit most difficult to build) because it requires only one power supply rail (@ ½V of HB) and has only two output terminals (not requiring center-tapped windings in the load).
QuoteSince it takes time for the current in an inductor to rise, at 120x higher frequency, the current will reach only 1/120 of the previous current level, which most likely will not be enough time to reach the ferrite saturation level ...and the BH curve will appear incomplete.
Of course this lack of time can be compensated with higher voltage at the amplifier's output but I don't think you can alter that in your analog amp.
Right, at about 6KHz i loose the ability to show a decent BH curve.
The reactance of the 633uH coil is then already 24 Ohm.
At 24Khz that would be 96 Ohm.
So i guess i have to go blind on the 24KHz with this "Yoke R".
QuoteIt is useful to have a HV digital amplifier in a lab for this and many other purposes.
Yes, a digital amp can output only rectangular voltage waveforms but it can do this at high frequency, voltage and current, when it is based on the modern SiC MOSFETs (like your NVH4L160N120SC1) and gate drivers.
I find the Full Bridge topology most convenient to use (albeit most difficult to build) because it requires only one power supply rail (@ ½V of HB) and has only two output terminals (not requiring center-tapped windings in the load).
I was working on a full H-bridge design here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3319.msg57288#msg57288 and found it really challenging.
But perhaps i have to revisit that and start looking for a circuit for a HV digital amplifier as, as you said, its useful to have.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.04, 10:20:16
I will see if i can increase the frequency to working (24KHz) frequency level.
Itsu
Itsu,
At higher frequencies, to protect the amplifier, I suggest increasing the value of the resistor in series between amp and load. Monitor the output to ensure the amplifier is content driving your test load. Avoid any signs of unwanted oscillations, clipping, slew rate limiting or tripping any current limiting. Some audio amps do not like operating near full power at half their maximum bandwidth.
Also note that published spec's can often be a bit optimistic...
PW
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.04, 15:56:02
So i guess i have to go blind on the 24KHz with this "Yoke R".
Yes, without increased output voltage to push the current into the inductor very quickly you are limited to low frequencies for the BH curve.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.04, 15:56:02
I was working on a full H-bridge design here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3319.msg57288#msg57288 and found it really challenging.
But perhaps i have to revisit that and start looking for a circuit for a HV digital amplifier as, as you said, its useful to have.
Because you took the hard way.
The easy way is to buy several pre-made isolated ±15V DC-DC converters to power the gates and use two
isolated gate drivers (https://eu.mouser.com/c/?q=isolated%20gate%20drivers) (...or digital isolators (https://eu.mouser.com/c/semiconductors/interface-ics/digital-isolators/) + normal gate drivers) for the high side MOSFETs.
They are available now from Mouser, Digikey, RSonline, etc... but were not 8 years ago.
(https://artesyncom-prod.scdn8.secure.raxcdn.com/assets/w1000/2dbc5050b6.png)
Quote from: picowatt on 2022.01.04, 16:23:19
Itsu,
At higher frequencies, to protect the amplifier, I suggest increasing the value of the resistor in series between amp and load. Monitor the output to ensure the amplifier is content driving your test load. Avoid any signs of unwanted oscillations, clipping, slew rate limiting or tripping any current limiting. Some audio amps do not like operating near full power at half their maximum bandwidth.
Also note that published spec's can often be a bit optimistic...
PW
PW,
I did notice some oscillations and current limiting effects at 24KHz, so indeed, its not happy with that load at that frequency.
Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2022.01.04, 16:28:38
Yes, without increased output voltage to push the current into the inductor very quickly you are limited to low frequencies for the BH curve.
Because you took the hard way.
The easy way is to buy several pre-made isolated ±15V DC-DC converters to power the gates and use two isolated gate drivers (or digital isolators) for the high side MOSFETs.
They are available now from Mouser, Digikey, RSonline, etc... but were not 8 years ago.
O0 I have some RK-0515S DC2DC converters and some IL610 isolators, but i see that those are old and there are new ones integrated together like the ADUM5241ARZ
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.04, 16:51:42
... and some IL610 isolators, but i see that those are old and there are new ones integrated together like the ADUM5241ARZ
These ADUM... digital isolators have 70ns propagation delay time. Depending what your target frequency is, these might not be fast enough.
There are faster ones like the ADN4654BRWZ (https://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Analog-Devices/ADN4654BRWZ?qs=qSfuJ%252Bfl%2Fd7eL1GoxiT6Hg%3D%3D) with 4ns propagation delay ...or even 2ns from Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
There are also gate drivers (https://eu.mouser.com/c/?q=isolated%20gate%20drivers) already integrated with isolators like the UCC21540DWK (https://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Texas-Instruments/UCC21540DWK?qs=byeeYqUIh0Pi34xaaYhvOQ%3D%3D).
Quote from: verpies on 2022.01.04, 17:03:09
YT has set your video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlRo3ILTGko) referred there to "private"
Hmmm, thanks, i notice YT has made some changes lately which i was not aware of (small print?) like ads on some of them and the change to private.
I have put that video on hidden again.
Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2022.01.04, 17:45:13
These ADUM... digital isolators have 70ns propagation delay time. Depending what your target frequency is, these might not be fast enough.
There are faster ones like the ADN4654BRWZ (https://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Analog-Devices/ADN4654BRWZ?qs=qSfuJ%252Bfl%2Fd7eL1GoxiT6Hg%3D%3D) with 4ns propagation delay ...or even 2ns from Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
There are also gate drivers (https://eu.mouser.com/c/?q=isolated%20gate%20drivers) already integrated with isolators like the UCC21540DWK (https://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Texas-Instruments/UCC21540DWK?qs=byeeYqUIh0Pi34xaaYhvOQ%3D%3D).
Thanks for the info, i see many of those chips are not available due to the chip shortage.
Perhaps its faster to look for a completed product on Ebay or Ali.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.04, 19:52:15
Thanks for the info, i see many of those chips are not available due to the chip shortage.
Some are on Mouser some are on www.rs-online.com and some on Digikey and some on Farnell.com ...and if you don't mind CN then on lcsc.com
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.04, 19:52:15
Perhaps its faster to look for a completed product on Ebay or Ali.
Let me know if you find something.
I don't think there is much consumer demand for MHz digital amplifiers with isolated inputs (so the FG is safe).
Only EEs and scientists want them, because they do not contain an integrated power supply and music would sound horrible
* if amplified by these amps.
* Unless PWM was added at their input and LC filter was attached to their output.
I saw this experiment (see diagram) from member Jagau on aboveunity.com here: https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/capacitor-recharging/
It shows what happens at the instance a charged capacitor (disconnected from its source (SW1 open)) is connected (SW2 closed) to an inductor.
Somehow i would have expected that the cap would not be negatively charged due to the diode, but it does.
Below screenshot shows:
blue: the voltage across the cap (10uF)
yellow: the voltage across the coil (8.4mH)
green: current between C1 and SW2 (closed)
Traces have a small offset from zero for better visibility.
Itsu
It is important to remember that a diode blocks reverse current - not reverse voltage.
Actually a beautiful experiment.
It demonstrates nicely Capacitive Discharge and Inductive Charge and Discharge leading to Capacitive Re-Charge with Polarity Change.
A form of Resonant Charging but it would be better if the Capacitor was Non-Polarized.
This behavior is the "secret" to the Switching Converter which Changes Polarity of the Input Current when the Output is directed to an external Load.
Quote from: verpies on 2022.01.06, 22:59:26
It is important to remember that a diode blocks reverse current - not reverse voltage.
Indeed, and this is a nice example of that IMO.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.01.06, 21:19:22
I saw this experiment (see diagram) from member Jagau on aboveunity.com here: https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/capacitor-recharging/
It shows what happens at the instance a charged capacitor (disconnected from its source (SW1 open)) is connected (SW2 closed) to an inductor.
Somehow i would have expected that the cap would not be negatively charged due to the diode, but it does.
...
Yes, it is surprising. So I did the ltspice simulation, and it is confirmed.
Thanks F6FLT, i was thinking about doing a simulation, but as the circuit was so simple i went for the real one.
Glad you did the simulation and that it confirmed it O0
Itsu
For Jagau on his remark to me in the above mentioned thread (https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/capacitor-recharging/):
QuoteP.S to Itsu, If you do not want to see the parasitic resonance at the end of the waveform, place your scope probe on
the anode of the diode, you will have a cleaner waveform.
Thanks Jagau, but i do want to see/show this "parasitic resonance" on the inductor (yellow trace).
And, i did have the (blue) probe on the "anode of the diode" (SW2 closed) which indeed shows a cleaner waveform (and thus the lack of "parasitic resonance") O0
Itsu
you seem to me a good experimenter.
Tell me what type of current probe do you use?
thank you
Hi Spark2,
i use a A6302 / AM 503B current probe / controller combo (Tektronix).
Itsu
Without the diode the Jagau circuit and signals show as below.
Massive ringing on the resonance frequency of the cap (10uF) and inductor (8.4mH) on 549Hz.
Quote from: verpies on 2022.01.06, 22:59:26
It is important to remember that a diode blocks reverse current - not reverse voltage.
Yes it does! if its depletion layer becomes reverse biased it will be cut off, most e prom programmers and micro controller programmers use that principal in programming by switching the higher programming voltage on and off, over the supply voltage ie 3volt or 5volt ect.
Sil
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2022.02.13, 20:44:36
Yes it does! if its depletion layer becomes reverse biased it will be cut off,
"Cut off" what ?
Quote from: verpies on 2022.02.14, 04:49:00
"Cut off" what ?
Reverse biased, turned off none conducting, rather like a veractor tuning diode.
But be aware if the depletion layer is stretched beyond the device breakdown limits it's likley the device
would be destroyed and become a S/C hazard.
So if it has say 20 volts reverse bias you would need to over come that voltage plus it's
depletion layer bias voltage to get it to pass your 20 volts or conduct your current through it.
Sil
That is not an answer to my question.
You are talking about reverse breakdown voltage, which does not mean that diode conducts or blocks that voltage.
It only means that the diode conducts current above that voltage. Conduction of voltage is a contradiction in terms.
Quote from: verpies on 2022.02.14, 11:52:14
That is not an answer to my question.
You are talking about reverse breakdown voltage, which does not mean that diode conducts or blocks that voltage.
It only means that the diode conducts current above that voltage. Conduction of voltage is a contradiction in terms.
No that's not what i am saying at all. your getting confused here, no matter such is life.
What i am saying is unless your voltage is in the forward direction to over come the diodes depletion layer you wont
forward pass any current through the diode. Reverse breakdown voltage doesn't come into it here.
Sil
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2022.02.15, 19:26:05
What i am saying is unless your voltage is in the forward direction to over come the diodes depletion layer you wont
forward pass any current through the diode. Reverse breakdown voltage doesn't come into it here.
The existence of the forward voltage knee still does not mean that the diode blocks voltage.
(https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/articles-iv2.gif)
Quote from: verpies on 2022.02.16, 12:23:08
The existence of the forward voltage knee still does not mean that the diode blocks voltage.
(https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/articles-iv2.gif)
Verpies , thanks for the graph, I think your referring to over voltage breakdown which can have destructive consequences.
However regarding Itsu's circuit diagram above It reminds me of a tunnel diode circuit with the tunnel diode in series with a tuning coil just like that circuit, however all the devices i ever experimented with had to biased and passably fed into driver, output transistor, however some very fast switching can be achieved with such a device
If you wanted to experiment that type of device there was a lot of Russian devices of the market some time back possibly ex military.
Regards Sil
I may be a bit off topic... I took a look at aboveunity.com. Jagau shows us things that may seem surprising but remain conventional, the models giving the same results as his observations.
Moreover, one must be careful with his assertions, for example at the end of this page https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/capacitor-recharging/, he says "the oscillation that we see at the end is caused by the spread capacitance of the inductors" whereas a model of the device shows the same oscillation without any spread capacitance for the inductor, the oscillation comes from the classical LC circuit with discrete elements.
It is a pity that he romanticizes his speech with unrealistic hypotheses, but it is still interesting because his basic setups remind us of fundamental things that we ignore or forget. Wanting to model the device that we see here in this video of Chris pointed out by Jagau (these 2 people seem close to each other in their way of thinking, maybe the same?): https://youtu.be/-IE_UZtKr-I?t=2311, I didn't find anything particular, but by replacing the diodes by capacitors, I found a behavior that I had forgotten, that is that you can obtain a resonance by using a fictitious inductance.
In the first diagram (see attached file), each of the 2 inductances L1 and L2, strongly coupled to each other (coefficient 0.9), is coupled with a coefficient 0.5 to the inductance L0 connected to the generator. We see in the AC analysis the resonance around 13.5 KHz.
If, without changing anything in the setup, we create an imbalance of the coefficients of mutual inductance by taking 0.45 for L1/L0 while we keep 0.5 for L2/L0, we see that we obtain a second resonance.
The resonance around 13 KHz of each circuit is maintained, but there is in addition a resonance linked to the common circuit L1+L2, around 51 KHz. In fact L1 and L2 being in opposition, it is as if we had a lower inductance (up to theoretically zero, which means that in the 1st case, we do not see the second resonance). This is an old technique used for example for antenna tuning (see http://w5jgv.com/11.7uHy_Delta_Variometer/).
We therefore understand that it becomes very complex to analyze setups like that of Kapanadze, where the degree of coupling of each coil to each other will generate multiple resonance frequencies that are difficult to control in practice. But on the other hand, we see that with these coupling coefficients, we have a large degree of freedom to vary inductors, for example to produce a parametric device with a mechanical or permeability vibration which would vary the coefficient of mutual inductance, idea on which I am at the moment.
F6FLT, not much "off topic" items here, within limits of course.
Concerning Chris and Jagau being the same, i don't think so.
Anyway, when you mention: "whereas a model of the device shows the same oscillation without any spread capacitance for the inductor" you point to your simulation in above post #809 here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg97054#msg97054.
So do you mean that the ringing at the end of your simulation would be the result of the L1 (10mH) and C1 (10uF) which according to this calculator: http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm would be around 503Hz?
But if closely looking at your ringing frequency (and when i replicate your sim), i see a ringing frequency of ~215KHz.
This ringing frequency of 215KHz with an inductor of 10mH points to a capacitance of ~55pF.
Why is the ringing frequency so different as the LC in the circuit?
Could it be that the sim includes the diode and/or probe capacitance?
Good point, Itsu! In the simulation, the oscillation cannot come from the intrinsic capacitance of the coil because by default C=0 and I did not change this value.
But you are right, the frequency is much higher than what we would expect with 10µF, I should have seen it. >:(
I thought it could be a question of the diode's capacitance because I used a real diode (1N5179). So I just redid the simulation with an ideal diode: no oscillation (see attached picture).
I added a 70 pF capacitor (value found in a datasheet of the 1N5819) in parallel on the perfect diode, and bingo, the oscillations came back!
But removing the capacitor from the perfect diode and putting it in parallel with the coil, the oscillation also occurs. It is therefore the set of parasitic capacitances around the inductance that contribute to the oscillation.
So I was wrong to attribute the oscillation to the pure LC circuit and Jagau is right but not 100% because of the forgotten capacitance of the diode which is also the cause of the oscillation.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.02.23, 15:31:21
...Concerning Chris and Jagau being the same, i don't think so.
I think you're right, and that it was Chris' sometimes unserious comments in his video that made me think that Jagau, who I thought was the same person, was not completely reliable. So don't be influenced by appearances... :(
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.02.23, 17:10:35
Good point, Itsu! In the simulation, the oscillation cannot come from the intrinsic capacitance of the coil because by default C=0 and I did not change this value.
But you are right, the frequency is much higher than what we would expect with 10µF, I should have seen it. >:(
I thought it could be a question of the diode's capacitance because I used a real diode (1N5179). So I just redid the simulation with an ideal diode: no oscillation (see attached picture).
I added a 70 pF capacitor (value found in a datasheet of the 1N5819) in parallel on the perfect diode, and bingo, the oscillations came back!
But removing the capacitor from the perfect diode and putting it in parallel with the coil, the oscillation also occurs. It is therefore the set of parasitic capacitances around the inductance that contribute to the oscillation.
So I was wrong to attribute the oscillation to the pure LC circuit and Jagau is right but not 100% because of the forgotten capacitance of the diode which is also the cause of the oscillation.
I think you're right, and that it was Chris' sometimes unserious comments in his video that made me think that Jagau, who I thought was the same person, was not completely reliable. So don't be influenced by appearances... :(
Good idea to use a perfect diode instead of the 1N5819 to show it is this diode capacitance that is causing the ringing.
I always try to use real world components from the LTSpice database to build my sim circuits just to avoid these "perfect" components errors.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.02.23, 20:49:34
...
I always try to use real world components from the LTSpice database to build my sim circuits just to avoid these "perfect" components errors.
Itsu
I agree that it is a good idea when you want to design a real setup or to reproduce one.
When you try to understand the principle, real components have a lot of hidden properties which can be the main cause of the observed effect. But these do not appear on the schematic, like those parasitic capacitances, like the inductances in series with the outputs of the transistors which are problematic at very high frequencies, like the leakage currents of the diodes in reverse and so on.
There are equivalent schematics to simulate a real component by several ideal components, so we have visibility and control of all the parameters, but it is not easy, that's why they are hidden in the parametric package of the real component that we take in the LTspice library.
When you do it manually, you have to simplify by keeping only the important parameters, like the parallel capacitance of any real inductance or of any diode in "real life".
As an experienced experimenter you know all this, but it is far from being the case for everybody, that is seen in the delirious comments on some videos where they invoke extraordinary phenomena when they are only due to the imperfections of the real components.
Following member "Jagau" on www.aboveunity.com in his thread "Melnichenko's Effect" he pointed to a way to measure the difference in energy between building up a magnetic field in an air coil and the collapsing of that magnetic field.
It seems that the difference is in favor of the collapsing of that magnetic field.
Jagau's thread and measurements are here: https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/melnichenko-s-effect/?order=all#comment-4add90dd-c710-4805-9308-ae600122bc0e
Its a method used by JL Naudin in his 2Sgen project (Solid State Generator) from 2010 shown here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/html/s2genep7en.htm
JL Naudin references a paper written by Nikolay E. Zaev where the theory behind this is explained: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/demag.pdf
Jagau mentions a difference ratio (calling it the: "magnetic power coefficient") of 27.77, while JL Naudin found 13.7 and N Zaev 16.3.
The measurement uses a 10K load resistor with a 22uF capacitor parallel on both the magnetization as the demagnetization phase, see top part diagram:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=43984;image)
Searching the web, i found an old thread on Overunity.com where this setup was mentioned and where the late MarkE showed that the claimed difference
should be zero: https://overunity.com/13551/magnet-coil-cores-demagnetization-power-and-lenz-delay/msg425491/#msg425491
But that does not tell why there is a considerable difference in stored energy in the both 22uF caps, see my setup below where i measure:
(E = 1/2 * C * V²) magnetization energy (4.184V) = 0.19256mJ and
demagnetization energy (11.33V) = 1.412mJ (using 22uF caps).
Anyway, i tried to replicate this setup by using a finemet (Nanocrystalline) FT-3K50T ferrite toroid as the flux gating source:
mu = 50K @ 1KHz
Coil 200 turns
L = 618mH @ 1KHz without any neo magnets attached
L = 395uH @ 1KHz with a stack of neo magnets attached
R = 1.1 Ohm
The air coil:
L = 16.3mH @ 1KHz
R = 12.5 Ohm
Using 2x UF4007 as diodes, 2x 10K resistors, 2x 22uF caps and an IRF530 MOSFET with 4V on drain see modified diagram:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=43986;image)
i get the following voltages on the 2x 22uF caps:
4.184V (magnetization) and 11.33V (demagnetization) and thus a "magnetic power coefficient" of 7.33 (11.33² / 10K) / (4.184² / 10K).
The screenshot shows:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=43990;image)
White: the gate signal into the MOSFET (1KHz @ 15% Duty Cycle)
yellow: the voltage across the air coil
green: the current through the air coil
blue: the DC voltage on the 22uF cap at demagnetization
purple: the DC voltage on the 22uF cap at magnetization
So its seems that we have more energy out of the air coil then was put in.
We do need to pulse the "flux gating source" with more power to achieve this, so overall COP below 1.
Video here: https://youtu.be/P-VeWDYTgog
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=43992;image)
Questions:
# is this the correct way to measure the difference in energy going into and out off an air coil?
# if correct, is there a way to harvest this difference and get some useful work out of it?
# MarkE mentioned in the mentiond OU.com thread that the difference on the scope (voltages) are zero, so why do the voltages on the caps show different?
# in my video it shows that the "flux gating source" needs to have its magnets positioned a specific way (horizontally), for the effect to show, JL Naudin shows his magnets are vertical.
Why is that so in my case, i mean the magnets saturate the finemet core no matter how they are positioned me thinks.
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu
What MarkE showed and said is correct for what he was showing, and as he said it is basically a boost converter.
is this the correct way to measure the difference in energy going into and out off an air coil?
Yes it is the correct way to measure the in and out energy, by using the area, the difference is the pulse width, the voltage, and the current, as in boost converter.
# if correct, is there a way to harvest this difference and get some useful work out of it?
Only if E out is greater than E in.
# MarkE mentioned in the mentiond OU.com thread that the difference on the scope (voltages) are zero, so why do the voltages on the caps show different?
Should not read (voltages) but energy.
# in the video it shows that the "flux gating source" needs to have its magnets positioned a specific way (horizontally), for the effect to show.
Why is that so, i mean the magnets saturate the finemet core no matter how they are positioned?
The saturation field from the magnets on the "core" of the "toroid" goes either way around from where the magnets are attached towards the opposite point (180º) on the other side. If vertical on the coil it will go through the coil, horizontal it will go across the coil when flat, horizontal but vertical causes a different field in relation to the coil where one way goes close to the coil and the other further away, here in lays the oscillations, not only capacitance!!!!
Regards
Mike
Hi Itsu,
I think magnetic field lines go roughly like on the picture.
When gate coil is off ring core "absorbs" PM field.
When gate coil is on then PM field is "squeezed" out of toroid.
For correct power calculation you need to take into account energy balance in both gate and air coil like in any transformer.
Regards,
Vasik
Quote from: Centraflow on 2022.03.30, 16:42:58
Hi Itsu
What MarkE showed and said is correct for what he was showing, and as he said it is basically a boost converter.
is this the correct way to measure the difference in energy going into and out off an air coil?
Yes it is the correct way to measure the in and out energy, by using the area, the difference is the pulse width, the voltage, and the current, as in boost converter.
# if correct, is there a way to harvest this difference and get some useful work out of it?
Only if E out is greater than E in.
# MarkE mentioned in the mentiond OU.com thread that the difference on the scope (voltages) are zero, so why do the voltages on the caps show different?
Should not read (voltages) but energy.
# in the video it shows that the "flux gating source" needs to have its magnets positioned a specific way (horizontally), for the effect to show.
Why is that so, i mean the magnets saturate the finemet core no matter how they are positioned?
The saturation field from the magnets on the "core" of the "toroid" goes either way around from where the magnets are attached towards the opposite point (180º) on the other side. If vertical on the coil it will go through the coil, horizontal it will go across the coil when flat, horizontal but vertical causes a different field in relation to the coil where one way goes close to the coil and the other further away, here in lays the oscillations, not only capacitance!!!!
Regards
Mike
Mike,
Quote# is this the correct way to measure the difference in energy going into and out off an air coil?
Yes it is the correct way to measure the in and out energy, by using the area, the difference is the pulse width, the voltage, and the current, as in boost converter.
I was not asking here if MarkE his answer (by using the area) is the correct way, i was asking if this whole setup (2 diodes with the 10K and 22uF caps) is the correct way to do so.
I know the voltage area alone (equal) does not mean much, its the Energy in total, therefor the different voltage on the both caps show there is a difference in energy (E = 1/2 * C * V²) magnetization energy (4.184V) = 0.19256mJ, and demagnetization energy (11.33V) = 1.412mJ (22uF caps).
Quote# if correct, is there a way to harvest this difference and get some useful work out of it?
Only if E out is greater than E in.
Like shown above, it is.
Quote# MarkE mentioned in the mentiond OU.com thread that the difference on the scope (voltages) are zero, so why do the voltages on the caps show different?
Should not read (voltages) but energy.
MarkE mentioned that the colored area's (voltages) are equal, thus zero difference, so to me he there meant the voltages alone.
But as said above, the energy is NOT the same as shown by my calculations of the energy in the both 22uF caps.
Quote# in the video it shows that the "flux gating source" needs to have its magnets positioned a specific way (horizontally), for the effect to show.
Why is that so, i mean the magnets saturate the finemet core no matter how they are positioned?
The saturation field from the magnets on the "core" of the "toroid" goes either way around from where the magnets are attached towards the opposite point
(180º) on the other side.
If vertical on the coil it will go through the coil, horizontal it will go across the coil when flat, horizontal but vertical causes a different field in
relation to the coil where one way goes close to the coil and the other further away, here in lays the oscillations, not only capacitance!!!!
Hmmm, why then does JN Naudin shows a vertical stack of magnets in most if not all of his setups, see: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm
Thanks, regards Itsu
Quote from: Vasik041 on 2022.03.30, 16:55:32
Hi Itsu,
I think magnetic field lines go roughly like on the picture.
When gate coil is off ring core "absorbs" PM field.
When gate coil is on then PM field is "squeezed" out of toroid.
For correct power calculation you need to take into account energy balance in both gate and air coil like in any transformer.
Regards,
Vasik
Vasik,
thanks for the picture, you could be right :P I don't know.
I know for a power measurement i have to include input power into the "flux gating source" (4V @ 100mA), and i mentioned that if doing so the COP would be below 1, but that is not the point
of the project.
Its the question if the magnetic field of a (air) coil requires less energy to build as that can be collected when it collapses.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Interesting experiment! What is the voltage reached at the IRF530 drain when the gate is turned off? The BVds for the IRF530 is 100v max according to the data sheet so, if the drain is reaching this level and going into avalanche, you need to calculate the energy produced during this time across the fet's drain to source and add that to the input energy. Then check for any gain >1.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.03.30, 19:10:24
Its the question if the magnetic field of a (air) coil requires less energy to build as that can be collected when it collapses.
Itsu,
While I am open to pleasant surprises, it seems very unlikely :)
There are some points to consider:
- flyback converters always have a core
- Zaev ferrokessor requires core
- there is no non-linearity in air core, at least at this times/frequencies/energy levels
Some interesting effects could come from standing waves in long coils but it is a different story.
Regards,
Vasik
Quote from: partzman on 2022.03.30, 19:45:52
Hi Itsu,
Interesting experiment! What is the voltage reached at the IRF530 drain when the gate is turned off? The BVds for the IRF530 is 100v max according to the data sheet so, if the drain is reaching this level and going into avalanche, you need to calculate the energy produced during this time across the fet's drain to source and add that to the input energy. Then check for any gain >1.
Regards,
Pm
Hi PM,
good catch, the voltage seems to be clipped to about 100V, see screenshot 1 (yellow voltage drain, green current through input coil).
But the focus is not the overall COP, but the COP of the air coil input / output (building / collapsing magnetic field).
Screenshot 2 as with the same time base as in above earlier screenshot
Itsu
Quote from: Vasik041 on 2022.03.30, 19:54:38
Itsu,
While I am open to pleasant surprises, it seems very unlikely :)
There are some points to consider:
- flyback converters always have a core
- Zaev ferrokessor requires core
- there is no non-linearity in air core, at least at this times/frequencies/energy levels
Some interesting effects could come from standing waves in long coils but it is a different story.
Regards,
Vasik
Vasik,
OK, so what you basically are saying is that this is NOT the correct way to measure the energy required to build a magnetic field in an air coil and what it yields when collapsing, as my measurements show the collapsing energy is bigger as what was needed to build it.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.03.30, 20:00:05
Hi PM,
good catch, the voltage seems to be clipped to about 100V, see screenshot 1 (yellow voltage drain, green current through input coil).
But the focus is not the overall COP, but the COP of the air coil input / output (building / collapsing magnetic field).
Screenshot 2 as with the same time base as in above earlier screenshot
Itsu
If you are running with a 4v dc supply for the PM biased toroid, then let's look at the numbers based on your scope pix attached below. The duration of the charging cycle for the toroid is 152us. The estimated mean charging current is ~800ma for an input energy consumption of 4*.8*152e-6 = 486uJ. The mean current could be higher due to the non-linear ramp as 60% was an approximate guess on my part.
The mean discharge current of the toroid is 660ma and the duration is ~8us or a little over. The discharge energy to the avalanched mosfet is .66*106*8e-6 = 559uJ which is greater than the charge energy! This is all based on a power supply of 4v.
These numbers could be actually pretty close as there is a time anomaly in that the discharge cycle is much smaller for the toroid than for the air coil!
It would be interesting to know the coupling factor between the two coils in their correct positions.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
nice calculations, i will see if i can verify your assumed data from the scope by using cursors on the scope to measure the mean and time value's.
So what you are saying is that already in source (the flux gating toroid) there is more energy out (used as input for the air coil) then in (559uJ versus 486uJ).
Concerning the coupling factor, that would be hard to find out i guess, and i even thought that there should be no coupling to start with for this effect to show up (therefor the 90° offset of the coils) as JL Nauding mentions in his 2SGen Episode 6 here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm#hidden where he says:
Some important keys to get an excess of energy:
The output coil must be fully EM decoupled from the input coil (no mutual inductance), so this why the toroïdal coil is used as the input coil and a cylindrical or a flat coil set at 90° as the output coil.
The magnet is used only to set the operating point in the MH curve of the toroïdal core. The magnet is not the source of the excess of energy. The ferromagnetic core is used on the highly non linear portion of the MH curve (where the core permeability drops quickly)
Shorter the clock pulse (low DTC) is, lower the energy spent for the magnetization process will be.
The 2SGen is not a transformer: The excess of energy tapped on its output comes from the magnetic material itself (during the demagnetization process). The volume of the ferromagnetic core used is important to get more power: greater the volume of the core is, higher the power at the output will be.
The pulse period must be greater than the time required for the magnetization/demagnetization process and this is fully dependent of the performance of the magnetic core used.
The best tuning is done when there is no change in the measured DC input power while the output coil is loaded.
Don't forget that energy of the magnetization pulse is the cost to be paid for obtaining the excess energy from demagnetization.
Regards Itsu
PM,
I measured more accurate the several data using cursors on the scope and my Fluke 179 DMM, see table:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44002;image)
It seems the discharge time is much less (4.4us) then your estimate (8us), see screenshot where i zoomed in:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44004;image)
So the discharge energy is less then the input consumption!
But this shows uJ (micro Joules) while my aircoil charge / discharge energy shows mJ (milli Joules), so something is wrong here.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.03.31, 08:37:15
...
Episode 6 here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm#hidden where he says:
Some important keys to get an excess of energy:
The output coil must be fully EM decoupled from the input coil (no mutual inductance) [...]
The magnet is used only to set the operating point in the MH curve of the toroïdal core.[...]
The 2SGen is not a transformer [...]
Hi Itsu,
Naudin's assertions are incompatible with each other.
The permeability of the core of the toroidal coil decreases in the axis of the permanent magnet, because at this point it tends to saturation. The permeability is no longer uniform along the torus.
As a consequence, the magnetic flux in the torus is not uniform either. The field lines pop out of the torus, around the low permeability part because of the magnet. That is to say that the part of less permeability behaves like an air gap, the coil leaks, and consequently the cylindrical coil receives this flux and behaves like the secondary of a transformer, allowing to light the LEDs.
So what Naudin said is wrong. The magnet is NOT only used to set the operating point in the MH curve, so the output coil is NOT fully EM decoupled from the input coil, and the 2SGen is indeed a transformer.
I had done some tests in this area a few years ago. Only a cylindrical magnet placed concentrically to the torus allows to change the permeability homogeneously, eventually to saturation, but transversally. So nothing changes along the torus because a saturation has the direction of the field that gives it birth. The inductance keeps the same value.
With a magnet in another position, as in Naudin's experiment, the inductance decreases, but the torus is no longer homogeneous, so the flux is no longer looped only in the torus, it leaks.
The torus can also be saturated homogeneously along, e.g. by adding a strong DC current to the AC current of the coil. It is then as if we had a core of lower permeability, which is of very limited practical interest.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.03.31, 12:53:58
PM,
I measured more accurate the several data using cursors on the scope and my Fluke 179 DMM, see table:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44002;image)
It seems the discharge time is much less (4.4us) then your estimate (8us), see screenshot where i zoomed in:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44004;image)
So the discharge energy is less then the input consumption!
But this shows uJ (micro Joules) while my aircoil charge / discharge energy shows mJ (milli Joules), so something is wrong here.
Itsu
Itsu,
OK, thanks for taking those measurements. The discharge time was the major source of error in my calcs however, let's take your input energy of 457uJ and your discharge energy of 268uJ which leaves us with a net energy consumption of 189uJ. Please note that the energy lost in the avalanche of the IRF530 does not to be that way. The discharge energy could be captured in a capacitor of proper value at a voltage just below the level of avalanche. This cap's energy would have to be periodically drained back to a/the power supply so the voltage remains below avalanche levels. This is just one solution.
Then let's take the sum of your energy calcs for C3 and C1 of 193uJ and 1.412mJ respectively which equals 1.605mJ . I see no other source of energy to your device so the apparent COP = 1.605e-3/189e-6 = 8.49!
To have a useful device from all this simply requires energy shuttling or transfer but even with additional losses, the COP would still be considerable.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.03.31, 12:55:20
Hi Itsu,
Naudin's assertions are incompatible with each other.
The permeability of the core of the toroidal coil decreases in the axis of the permanent magnet, because at this point it tends to saturation. The permeability is no longer uniform along the torus.
As a consequence, the magnetic flux in the torus is not uniform either. The field lines pop out of the torus, around the low permeability part because of the magnet. That is to say that the part of less permeability behaves like an air gap, the coil leaks, and consequently the cylindrical coil receives this flux and behaves like the secondary of a transformer, allowing to light the LEDs.
So what Naudin said is wrong. The magnet is NOT only used to set the operating point in the MH curve, so the output coil is NOT fully EM decoupled from the input coil, and the 2SGen is indeed a transformer.
I had done some tests in this area a few years ago. Only a cylindrical magnet placed concentrically to the torus allows to change the permeability homogeneously, eventually to saturation, but transversally. So nothing changes along the torus because a saturation has the direction of the field that gives it birth. The inductance keeps the same value.
With a magnet in another position, as in Naudin's experiment, the inductance decreases, but the torus is no longer homogeneous, so the flux is no longer looped only in the torus, it leaks.
The torus can also be saturated homogeneously along, e.g. by adding a strong DC current to the AC current of the coil. It is then as if we had a core of lower permeability, which is of very limited practical interest.
Thanks F6FLT,
So what about the FEMM simulation here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm#simulation
In the video it says: "..the magnetic field outside the toroidal coil is null..."
(http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/2SGenSim.gif)
This is with the magnets inside the toroid.
Anyway, so you think the signals measured in the air coil are there pure due to EM coupling of the leaking flux of the toroid coil.
What about the difference in energy measured in this air coil during magnetization and demagnetization?
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2022.03.31, 14:22:54
Itsu,
OK, thanks for taking those measurements. The discharge time was the major source of error in my calcs however, let's take your input energy of 457uJ and your discharge energy of 268uJ which leaves us with a net energy consumption of 189uJ. Please note that the energy lost in the avalanche of the IRF530 does not to be that way. The discharge energy could be captured in a capacitor of proper value at a voltage just below the level of avalanche. This cap's energy would have to be periodically drained back to a/the power supply so the voltage remains below avalanche levels. This is just one solution.
Then let's take the sum of your energy calcs for C3 and C1 of 193uJ and 1.412mJ respectively which equals 1.605mJ . I see no other source of energy to your device so the apparent COP = 1.605e-3/189e-6 = 8.49!
To have a useful device from all this simply requires energy shuttling or transfer but even with additional losses, the COP would still be considerable.
Regards,
Pm
QuoteThe discharge time was the major source of error in my calcs however, let's take your input energy of 457uJ and your discharge energy of 268uJ which leaves us with a net energy consumption of 189uJ.
Please note that the energy lost in the avalanche of the IRF530 does not to be that way.
The discharge energy could be captured in a capacitor of proper value at a voltage just below the level of avalanche.
This cap's energy would have to be periodically drained back to a/the power supply so the voltage remains below avalanche levels.
This is just one solution.
What if i use a another MOSFET capable of handling the peak voltage, it would not avalanche and all energy would be accounted for.
QuoteThen let's take the sum of your energy calcs for C3 and C1 of 193uJ and 1.412mJ respectively which equals 1.605mJ .
I see no other source of energy to your device so the apparent COP = 1.605e-3/189e-6 = 8.49!
The FG adds some power (700uA, 730mV, for 147us), but can be neglected i guess.
But are those energy calcs (the 193uJ and 1.412mJ on C1 and C3 i mean) realistic as they are taken over a longer time period.
Should we not short the caps, fire 1 cycle, then measure etc.?
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.03.31, 15:05:28
What if i use a another MOSFET capable of handling the peak voltage, it would not avalanche and all energy would be accounted for.
The FG adds some power (700uA, 730mV, for 147us), but can be neglected i guess.
But are those energy calcs (the 193uJ and 1.412mJ on C1 and C3 i mean) realistic as they are taken over a longer time period.
Should we not short the caps, fire 1 cycle, then measure etc.?
Itsu
Itsu,
OK, I incorrectly assumed that the sequence to generate the voltage levels in C3 and C1 was over one cycle. Yes, one cycle should be taken and then the energy levels compared but I think then it will come out conservative!
Regards,
Pm
See the attached, it should explain what is happening.
Note that JLN's toroid is inside the solenoid along with the magnets, the magnets are the source of energy "compress and release".
Regards
Mike
Quote from: partzman on 2022.03.31, 16:38:22
Itsu,
OK, I incorrectly assumed that the sequence to generate the voltage levels in C3 and C1 was over one cycle. Yes, one cycle should be taken and then the energy levels compared but I think then it will come out conservative!
Regards,
Pm
Right, i agree, but the overall COP was not the goal in the first place.
The goal is to show that in the air coil, the energy to create the magnetic field is less then the energy available when this magnetic field collapses.
My replication shows this is so, a real Solid State Generator, but one of the questions i asked in my opening post is if this method is the correct one
to measure the energy to build the magnetic field and to measure the energy in the collapsing magnetic field.
Itsu
Quote from: Centraflow on 2022.03.31, 16:38:36
See the attached, it should explain what is happening.
Note that JLN's toroid is inside the solenoid along with the magnets, the magnets are the source of energy "compress and release".
Regards
Mike
Mike,
one of JL Naudins setup has the toroid inside the solenoid along with the magnets as you show it, but many other setup's have not, see the below examples.
I choose to put the toroid ontop of the air coil with the magnets attached to the toroid and it seems to show the effect (generating energy).
My question is if the method i use to measure this (more energy out of a collapsing magnetic field then was put in to build it) is the correct one or that i get fooled somehow.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.03.31, 14:32:20
Thanks F6FLT,
So what about the FEMM simulation here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm#simulation
In the video it says: "..the magnetic field outside the toroidal coil is null..."
(http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/2SGenSim.gif)
This is with the magnets inside the toroid.
...
I don't find Naudin's simulation clear. Which field is he talking about? The static one of the magnet, or the field generated by the AC signal? If it is the static one, then the symmetry of the setup with the magnets on a diameter of the toroid should provide a balance between the 2 halves, and this is not what we see. I have no experience of FEMM.
A simulation should show us the areas where the static magnetic field is strengthened, and therefore where the permeability is reduced, according to the curve he gives here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/2SGenworkingzone.gif .
But this variation of permeability with the field is along the field lines. As the field of the magnet and the variable field along the toroid are not collinear, we know nothing about the permeability that the variable flux will experience. We only know that in the areas where the "AC" flux will be at a low angle to the "DC" flux of the magnet, it will be in an area of reduced permeability (I assume the "AC" flux is low compared to that of the magnet). In areas where the "AC" flux will be at a 90° angle to the "DC" flux of the magnet, it will be in an area of normal permeability, even though the permeability there will have been reduced by the field of the magnet, but only along the axis of the magnet flux.
When the permeability is variable with the magnetic field, which is the case here, it is modified by the magnetic field only on the axis of the magnetic flux, and if one turns with respect to this axis, it will be seen to be larger and larger until it returns to its normal value at 90°. Another flux at 90° to a saturating flux will not even feel the saturation. Permeability is not a scalar, it becomes a vector when it is no longer anisotropic under the effect of a field. AC flux and DC flux do not see here the same thing.
I think that the "AC" flux meeting permeability variations, leaks where they are the weakest.
[more on your other point tomorrow]
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.03.31, 19:33:37
Mike,
one of JL Naudins setup has the toroid inside the solenoid along with the magnets as you show it, but many other setup's have not, see the below examples.
I choose to put the toroid ontop of the air coil with the magnets attached to the toroid and it seems to show the effect (generating energy).
My question is if the method i use to measure this (more energy out of a collapsing magnetic field then was put in to build it) is the correct one or that i get fooled somehow.
Itsu
Yes I understand that, but then the magnets are not set up the same with the toroid and the solenoid, but the effect I think is the same. What you can't have is too strong a magnet in relation to the input to the toroid. Note the solenoid coil is very flat on those others, that was for me a giveaway to what I'm thinking.
As PM says, with one cycle it will be conservative, but with more cycles, the time pumps up the output in the capacitor and gives a deceptive power output. The first pulse should be near equal, the second double, etc.
So your answer should be no, it is probably not the correct way. As MarkE showed, is, as the area is related to E even though the scope is showing voltage it is also showing pulse time (in and out are not the same duty).
It is a good topic for debate
Regards
Mike
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.03.31, 21:03:53
I don't find Naudin's simulation clear. Which field is he talking about? The static one of the magnet, or the field generated by the AC signal? If it is the static one, then the symmetry of the setup with the magnets on a diameter of the toroid should provide a balance between the 2 halves, and this is not what we see. I have no experience of FEMM.
A simulation should show us the areas where the static magnetic field is strengthened, and therefore where the permeability is reduced, according to the curve he gives here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/2SGenworkingzone.gif .
But this variation of permeability with the field is along the field lines. As the field of the magnet and the variable field along the toroid are not collinear, we know nothing about the permeability that the variable flux will experience. We only know that in the areas where the "AC" flux will be at a low angle to the "DC" flux of the magnet, it will be in an area of reduced permeability (I assume the "AC" flux is low compared to that of the magnet). In areas where the "AC" flux will be at a 90° angle to the "DC" flux of the magnet, it will be in an area of normal permeability, even though the permeability there will have been reduced by the field of the magnet, but only along the axis of the magnet flux.
When the permeability is variable with the magnetic field, which is the case here, it is modified by the magnetic field only on the axis of the magnetic flux, and if one turns with respect to this axis, it will be seen to be larger and larger until it returns to its normal value at 90°. Another flux at 90° to a saturating flux will not even feel the saturation. Permeability is not a scalar, it becomes a vector when it is no longer anisotropic under the effect of a field. AC flux and DC flux do not see here the same thing.
I think that the "AC" flux meeting permeability variations, leaks where they are the weakest.
[more on your other point tomorrow]
F6FLT,
i agree that the FEMM simulation is not clear about what it simulates, in fact the more i read the whole 2SGen website, the more questions i have about things.
It almost seems like that a lot of info is not given or kept vague for some reason, perhaps to stimulate the replicator to use his brain / knowledge and find the answers he did not have, or just to keep the secret (if any) hidden.
Thanks for now, itsu
Quote from: Centraflow on 2022.03.31, 22:28:03
Yes I understand that, but then the magnets are not set up the same with the toroid and the solenoid, but the effect I think is the same. What you can't have is too strong a magnet in relation to the input to the toroid. Note the solenoid coil is very flat on those others, that was for me a giveaway to what I'm thinking.
As PM says, with one cycle it will be conservative, but with more cycles, the time pumps up the output in the capacitor and gives a deceptive power output. The first pulse should be near equal, the second double, etc.
So your answer should be no, it is probably not the correct way. As MarkE showed, is, as the area is related to E even though the scope is showing voltage it is also showing pulse time (in and out are not the same duty).
It is a good topic for debate
Regards
Mike
Mike,
i also doubt that this method to measure the mag / demag field energy using the 2 diodes, 10K resistor and 22uF caps is correct, therefor my first question was about that.
But i still think that MarkE was only talking about the voltages as that was the only info (screenshot) he had.
The voltages (mean value's) can be the same, but if, as you said, the pulse time and the current are different (as they are) the energy still can be different (unequal) like i measure / calculate, and in favor of the demag phase.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.03.31, 14:32:20
...
What about the difference in energy measured in this air coil during magnetization and demagnetization?
He measured on the output coil the positive or negative voltage rectified by a diode to a capacitor with a parallel resistor. It did not measure the RMS voltage but a peak voltage which will depend on the RC time constant. This voltage cannot be used to evaluate the energy. The energy is the integration over time of the product U(t)*I(t), so it did not calculate the magnetization and demagnetization energy.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.01, 08:18:46
...
It almost seems like that a lot of info is not given or kept vague for some reason, perhaps to stimulate the replicator to use his brain / knowledge and find the answers he did not have, or just to keep the secret (if any) hidden.
...
The experiments seem to be well described, Naudin provides diagrams and pictures, this is positive, but there are gaps for which I don't know the reasons.
But my criticism is the lack of follow-up when he claims there is an OU. I remember him saying that he measured 10% OU on a MEG. For me it was within the uncertainty range of the measurements, but for him it was OU. So if it is OU, we must obviously persist, perfect and remove any doubt on the matter. But he has moved on! Of course he realized that there was no OU but he did not want to disavow himself. Same thing with the Kapagen: one day he measures OU, but in his following tests there is no more, and we never saw him draw conclusions on his probable error of the OU of a day that we never saw again.
I think he really believed in the emergence of this FE at that time, and now that he has abandoned the field due to his own and everyone else's failures for over 20 years.
Thanks,
So you say that this is not the correct way to measure the mag / demag field energy of this air coil using the 2 diodes, 10K resistor and 22uF caps.
Any idea what is the correct / a better way, if any?
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.01, 10:39:45
Thanks,
So you say that this is not the correct way to measure the mag / demag field energy of this air coil using the 2 diodes, 10K resistor and 22uF caps.
Any idea what is the correct / a better way, if any?
Itsu
It is nonsense to imagine that an air cored coil has a difference between magnetized field energy and demagnetized field energy. But this is not an air core as it has the permeable toroidal core within its ambit. If you measure the (open circuit, no load) voltage rise while the coil is receiving some magnetic field from that toroid then the integral of that rise wrt time will tell you the value of the field flux within the air core. You could then relate that to the energy that you would have got if the field came from current in the coil, and call that the magnetized energy. You could do this by calculation or by taking the toroid away and putting in your own current to get that flux value, then doing the math to get the energy. You could also do the integral of the voltage fall down to zero to get the value of the flux fall, and you would get the same values of flux and energy. An air cored coil does not and can not have different mag/demag energy.
Now the coil plus that toroid is not air-cored, so could that combination have different mag/demag energies? If so this will be a property of the toroid and that is another matter. You wont get the answer from that nonsensical charging of the two capacitors. The sensible thing to do there is to put a current pulse into the air core and measure the voltage rise and fall (a) with the toroid un-energized and (b) with the toroid energized. That will tell you a lot about the effect of that toroid on the system. You could play around with that data looking for OU.
On the subject of whether the toroid get saturated by the magnets, when using tape wound cores like metglas the core high permeability does not apply to the magnet's field being injected into the core radially, it only applied to the field along the laminations. The field from the magnet does not follow the field lines shown in the simulations that assume the permeability is isotropic. In fact they do not penetrate so far into the core, most of the field lines flow around the core in the laminations closest to the magnet. And that concentration will saturate that part of the core. This has interesting features that could apply to the MEG where flux from the input coils adds or subtracts from the magnet's flux in different halves of the core. That adding or subtracting alters the radial depth where the saturation region occurs, so we get a form of flux-gate pumping going on. The attached image show a simulation of the MEG core where the FEMM facility of having different values of x and y permeability is used to show the concentration of the magnet's flux in the inner laminations.
Smudge
Update from Smudge seen, much appreciated, i will digest it later.
I have measured / calculated the air coil mag / demag energy the same way Partzman (and i later-on) did on the input toroid energies here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg98266#msg98266 Partzman
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg98271#msg98271 mine.
The below screenshots show the air coil voltage (yellow) and current (green) with the load (diodes, 10K's and 22uF caps) installed.
1st screenshot shows the mag phase (in between cursors): time, mean voltage and mean current.
2nd screenshot shows the demag phase (in between cursors): time, mean voltage and mean current.
Data:
mag phase:
time 147.6us
mean voltage -5.06V
mean current 3.8mA
Energy t*V*I = 2.8uJ
demag phase:
time: 62.04us
mean voltage: 12.48V
mean current: -19.64mA
Energy: t*V*I: 15.2uJ
Several people have pointed out that the above calculations are not valid in this situation, so please ignore them.
Further down i will try to recalculate the mag / demag energy by a valid procudure.
So it also shows the air coil mag / demag energy difference (2.8uJ / 15.2uJ), but these are way less then the input toroid energies (457uJ / 268uJ) making
the overall COP of this device in this setup way below 1
But it seems that most votes are NOT in favor of this (2 diodes 10K and 22uF method) being the correct way to measure the (air) coil mag / demag energies.
Regards Itsu
Itsu,
IMO, taking the VA*t product to arrive at the mag and de-mag energies in each phase is not correct. What would be correct would be to first measure the energy in the 22k resistors with Ur = Emean^2/22e-3*t .
Then calculate the energies in the 22uf caps by first calculating the voltage rise with dE = Imean*t/22e-6 and then calculate the energies with Ucap = dE^2*22e-6/2 . Add these two energies together to arrive at the net mag and de-mag energy levels. I'm in a rush here for a meeting but I think the ratio of de-mag to mag is >4:1.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.04.01, 14:22:36
It is nonsense to imagine that an air cored coil has a difference between magnetized field energy and demagnetized field energy. But this is not an air core as it has the permeable toroidal core within its ambit. If you measure the (open circuit, no load) voltage rise while the coil is receiving some magnetic field from that toroid then the integral of that rise wrt time will tell you the value of the field flux within the air core. You could then relate that to the energy that you would have got if the field came from current in the coil, and call that the magnetized energy. You could do this by calculation or by taking the toroid away and putting in your own current to get that flux value, then doing the math to get the energy. You could also do the integral of the voltage fall down to zero to get the value of the flux fall, and you would get the same values of flux and energy. An air cored coil does not and can not have different mag/demag energy.
Now the coil plus that toroid is not air-cored, so could that combination have different mag/demag energies? If so this will be a property of the toroid and that is another matter. You wont get the answer from that nonsensical charging of the two capacitors. The sensible thing to do there is to put a current pulse into the air core and measure the voltage rise and fall (a) with the toroid un-energized and (b) with the toroid energized. That will tell you a lot about the effect of that toroid on the system. You could play around with that data looking for OU.
On the subject of whether the toroid get saturated by the magnets, when using tape wound cores like metglas the core high permeability does not apply to the magnet's field being injected into the core radially, it only applied to the field along the laminations. The field from the magnet does not follow the field lines shown in the simulations that assume the permeability is isotropic. In fact they do not penetrate so far into the core, most of the field lines flow around the core in the laminations closest to the magnet. And that concentration will saturate that part of the core. This has interesting features that could apply to the MEG where flux from the input coils adds or subtracts from the magnet's flux in different halves of the core. That adding or subtracting alters the radial depth where the saturation region occurs, so we get a form of flux-gate pumping going on. The attached image show a simulation of the MEG core where the FEMM facility of having different values of x and y permeability is used to show the concentration of the magnet's flux in the inner laminations.
Smudge
Smudge,
QuoteIt is nonsense to imagine that an air cored coil has a difference between magnetized field energy and demagnetized field energy. But this is not an air core as it has the permeable toroidal core within its ambit. If you measure the (open circuit, no load) voltage rise while the coil is receiving some magnetic field from that toroid then the integral of that rise wrt time will tell you the value of the field flux within the air core. You could then relate that to the energy that you would have got if the field came from current in the coil, and call that the magnetized energy. You could do this by calculation or by taking the toroid away and putting in your own current to get that flux value, then doing the math to get the energy. You could also do the integral of the voltage fall down to zero to get the value of the flux fall, and you would get the same values of flux and energy. An air cored coil does not and can not have different mag/demag energy.
you say:
It is nonsense to imagine that an air cored coil has a difference between magnetized field energy and demagnetized field energyand
An air cored coil does not and can not have different mag/demag energy.That is good to know and i think i have to agree after reading Nikolay E. Zaev his PDF again as he there talks about "Ferrites and Ferromagnetics Free Energy Generation", so its the ferrite / ferromagnetics as core that is generating the free energy according to him.
So the output / air coil used by JN Naudin must be the vehicle to extract that energy from the ferrite.
My air coil measures 16mH @ 1KHz and this increases to 18mH @ 1KHz when the toroid coil is placed ontop, with or without the magnets attached.
I will try to follow your suggestion to measure / calculate the (even) mag. / demag. energy of the stand alone air coil to proof that it is correct what you are saying, but i am not sure i understand exactly how to do so.
QuoteNow the coil plus that toroid is not air-cored, so could that combination have different mag/demag energies? If so this will be a property of the toroid and that is another matter. You wont get the answer from that nonsensical charging of the two capacitors. The sensible thing to do there is to put a current pulse into the air core and measure the voltage rise and fall (a) with the toroid un-energized and (b) with the toroid energized. That will tell you a lot about the effect of that toroid on the system. You could play around with that data looking for OU.
So indeed the air coil is influenced by the toroid core (inductance 16mH v 18mH) so a difference in mag. / demag. energy could be caused by that.
But you say: "You wont get the answer from that nonsensical charging of the two capacitors.", so what do i measure with that "nonsensical charging of the two capacitors"?
I measure a clear difference in mag. / demag. energy.
Anyway, i will try to follow your suggestion and "put a current pulse into the air core and measure the voltage rise and fall (a) with the toroid un-energized and (b) with the toroid energized."
QuoteOn the subject of whether the toroid get saturated by the magnets, when using tape wound cores like metglas the core high permeability does not apply to the magnet's field being injected into the core radially, it only applied to the field along the laminations. The field from the magnet does not follow the field lines shown in the simulations that assume the permeability is isotropic. In fact they do not penetrate so far into the core, most of the field lines flow around the core in the laminations closest to the magnet. And that concentration will saturate that part of the core. This has interesting features that could apply to the MEG where flux from the input coils adds or subtracts from the magnet's flux in different halves of the core. That adding or subtracting alters the radial depth where the saturation region occurs, so we get a form of flux-gate pumping going on. The attached image show a simulation of the MEG core where the FEMM facility of having different values of x and y permeability is used to show the concentration of the magnet's flux in the inner laminations.
Thanks for the info on metglas cores, the finemet core i have seems also tape wound, so will show similar effects as you describe.
It is strange then i think that JL Naudin shows a FEMM simulation of a Nanoperm M-059 core which seems to follow other rules with no flux leakage etc.
Thanks, Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2022.04.01, 17:22:28
Itsu,
IMO, taking the VA*t product to arrive at the mag and de-mag energies in each phase is not correct. What would be correct would be to first measure the energy in the 22k resistors with Ur = Emean^2/22e-3*t .
Then calculate the energies in the 22uf caps by first calculating the voltage rise with dE = Imean*t/22e-6 and then calculate the energies with Ucap = dE^2*22e-6/2 . Add these two energies together to arrive at the net mag and de-mag energy levels. I'm in a rush here for a meeting but I think the ratio of de-mag to mag is >4:1.
Regards,
Pm
Thanks PM,
i will try to follow your suggestion to recalculate. (you mean 10e-3 for the resistors (10K) i guess).
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.01, 20:01:50
It is strange then i think that JL Naudin shows a FEMM simulation of a Nanoperm M-059 core which seems to follow other rules with no flux leakage etc.
It is quite clear (to me as I have done many simulations) that
(a) the JLN simulation does not have a current carrying coil wound around the toroid so is not simulating the actual experiment and (b) is simulating the effect of current in the air coil that creates a field that adds/subtracts with the fields in the two halves of the toroidal core. If you simulate the effect of current in the toroidal coil you will get flux external to the core due to saturation. There has to be flux leakage and the experiment shows that, you can't get any voltage induction in the air coil if there is no flux leakage.
Edit. Changed my mind about the above statement struck through. Look out for later post.
Smudge
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.01, 10:39:45
So you say that this is not the correct way to measure the mag / demag field energy of this air coil using the 2 diodes, 10K resistor and 22uF caps.
Any idea what is the correct / a better way, if any?
...
You have to calculate the energy by integrating the product of the instantaneous values of V and I, with the coil only feeding the resistance. I don't know if a cheap scope like Siglent or Rigol can do this directly. Apparently mine doesn't do the calculation using both channels, so if I had to do it, I would read the V(t), I(t) values on a hundred points spread over the magnetization/demagnetization time, and I would have the sigma of the products calculated by Excel.
Anyway, there is no doubt that a variable flux goes through the recovery coil since it supplies current to the LEDs. Conversely, feeding this coil will certainly make a voltage appear at the terminals of the toroidal coil, I take the bet with confidence.
If this is not proof that a flux is shared between the two coils, a coherent alternative explanation will have to be provided, along with why it would differ experimentally from the first.
For the record, in the original "Melnichenko's Effect" thread (https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/melnichenko-s-effect/?order=all#comment-264cc704-2dba-4712-b14d-ae6a0170506a),
both Chris Sykes as Jagau expressed their feelings about some statements made here.
Especially the pertinent statement of Smudge about the zero difference in magnetic field build / collapse energy of an air coil is passionately disagreed upon.
Perhaps the misunderstanding is about the fact that Smudge specifically mentions an air coil, while Chris might talk about (and point to) a cored coil.
I think even Smudge would agree that their can be a difference in the building / collapsing of the magnetic field energy of a cored coil.
Anyway, i will avoid to start a cross-forum discussion, so will leave it this after mentioning that i indeed am not replicating Jagau his Melnichenko's Effect circuit at the moment as i am stuck right now on how his circuit looks like.
It seems a combination of Melnichenko's and the 2SGen measurement circuit, but i am lost how it is connected together and where the scope points etc. are.
When i have figured it out i might continue this replication.
Regards Itsu
I quickly knocked up a FEMM simulation of JLN's geometry but not necessarily his magnet or core data, I just used what I had immediately available. In the images below I show the block names. In the first two images my core has a mu of 100,000 and my magnet is NdFeB 32MGOe. You will see that around the ring core and inside it the areas are shown as conductors, not air. In the first image the conductors carry no current. In the second image the conductors carry 1 amp into or out of the screen. So that simulates the toroidal coil current. If you compare those images with the JLN ones you will see they are identical apart from the actual flux values. I think JLN (or whoever did the simulation) must have done this trick of making those air spaces conductors, to save him the bother of drawing more lines to put conducting regions close to the core. Also the core mu is modeled as being linear, no saturation.
The third image has a supermalloy core which is driven into saturation. Although there appears to be zero field outside the core, this is because the density color plot and the contour plot have cut-off values. When I adjust the cut off values I get the fourth image that shows the leakage flux outside the core. I adjusted values for both the contour plot and the density (color) plot so the colors in the table there give an indication of the outside values that can be compared to the values inside the core in the previous image. They are of course much smaller which is why the experiment is such a poor transformer with COP << 1.
Smudge
I've done some preliminary testing of a similar setup to Itsu's but I don't have time at the moment to post the results because my wife is in the hospital. However, I will say that IMO the air coil is simply a flux sensor for the asymmetrical magnetization and de-magnetization of the PM biased toroid cored coil. At least this is the case with the PM stack on the outside of the toroid as Itsu has it. If the charge and discharge voltage levels are identical, there is little to no asymmetry in the H field. If however, the discharge voltage level is allowed to rise far above the charge level, there is apparent asymmetry in the H field which is detected by the air coil. I might add here that I'm using a ferrite core for the toroid and it is going into saturation during the charging phase.
The degree of asymmetry can easily be determined by measuring the areas of the positive and negative current waveforms of the air coil when shorted. This is incorrect. What I meant is to rectify the output of the shorted air coil with first a diode direction that indicates the magnetization of the toroid and then the opposite polarity to display the de-magnetization phase.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.04.02, 14:09:04
I quickly knocked up a FEMM simulation of JLN's geometry but not necessarily his magnet or core data, I just used what I had immediately available. In the images below I show the block names. In the first two images my core has a mu of 100,000 and my magnet is NdFeB 32MGOe. You will see that around the ring core and inside it the areas are shown as conductors, not air. In the first image the conductors carry no current. In the second image the conductors carry 1 amp into or out of the screen. So that simulates the toroidal coil current. If you compare those images with the JLN ones you will see they are identical apart from the actual flux values. I think JLN (or whoever did the simulation) must have done this trick of making those air spaces conductors, to save him the bother of drawing more lines to put conducting regions close to the core. Also the core mu is modeled as being linear, no saturation.
The third image has a supermalloy core which is driven into saturation. Although there appears to be zero field outside the core, this is because the density color plot and the contour plot have cut-off values. When I adjust the cut off values I get the fourth image that shows the leakage flux outside the core. I adjusted values for both the contour plot and the density (color) plot so the colors in the table there give an indication of the outside values that can be compared to the values inside the core in the previous image. They are of course much smaller which is why the experiment is such a poor transformer with COP << 1.
Smudge
Impressive Smudge, thanks for doing that.
The simulation images indeed look very much the same as the JLN images, but it takes an expert like you to point to the abnormalities or shortcuts.
So the fact that JLN says that there is no flux leakage is because of the cut off values (defaults i guess) of the FEMM program that are obscuring them.
Another thing it shows is that JLN was right when he said: "The 2SGen is not a transformer" or at least a very bad one.
But concerning the image 2, why the asymmetry (left side more flux then right side)?
The coil suppose to be evenly spread around the whole toroid, or is this a "moment in time"?
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2022.04.02, 14:28:27
I've done some preliminary testing of a similar setup to Itsu's but I don't have time at the moment to post the results because my wife is in the hospital. However, I will say that IMO the air coil is simply a flux sensor for the asymmetrical magnetization and de-magnetization of the PM biased toroid cored coil. At least this is the case with the PM stack on the outside of the toroid as Itsu has it. If the charge and discharge voltage levels are identical, there is little to no asymmetry in the H field. If however, the discharge voltage level is allowed to rise far above the charge level, there is apparent asymmetry in the H field which is detected by the air coil. I might add here that I'm using a ferrite core for the toroid and it is going into saturation during the charging phase.
The degree of asymmetry can easily be determined by measuring the areas of the positive and negative current waveforms of the air coil when shorted. This is incorrect. What I meant is to rectify the output of the shorted air coil with first a diode direction that indicates the magnetization of the toroid and then the opposite polarity to display the de-magnetization phase.
Regards,
Pm
Thanks PM, i hope your wife is OK, don't rush things.
I am more seeing indeed that the air coil is a kind of vehicle to transfer the energies from the toroid coil, like you said a flux sensor.
Itsu
I'm following with interest. Thanks for this research and for the reports.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.02, 14:58:07
But concerning the image 2, why the asymmetry (left side more flux then right side)?
The coil suppose to be evenly spread around the whole toroid, or is this a "moment in time"?
FEMM can only do instantaneous moments in time. The animated gif in JLN's site is made form a series of snap shots. I only show one snap shot and that should agree with one frame of JLN's animation. The magnet flux goes down the two halves of the core in the same direction (downwards) whereas the the flux from the toroidal coil goes around the ring. Thus you get addition of fluxes in one half and subtraction of fluxes in the other half, hence the asymmetry.
Smudge
In the simulation, the variable flux seems to be of the same level as the fixed flux. It seems physically impossible to me that the field created by a coil of 200 turns and a few amperes is of the same order of magnitude as that of the neodymium magnets, which represent tens to hundreds of kiloampere-turns it seems.
And if Naudin has voluntarily increased the variable flux so that it is visible compared to the fixed flux, then the simulation becomes false because a strong variable flux also modifies the permeability, thus bringing non-linearities in the signal because the permeability becomes variable in time, whereas if it is weak, only the permanent magnets drive the permeability.
While thinking about this, I remembered something that may be interesting, aside from the 2SGen. The relative permeability of neodymium is only 1.05. So if the flux from the magnet is routed through a magnetic circuit of high permeability, in which a coil creates a variable flux, then the variable flux will only be able to loop very weakly through the magnet material, its permeability being too low. So we have 2 fluxes sharing the same magnetic circuit but only the flux of the magnet will benefit from a homogeneous continuity, while the variable flux will feel the neodymium part of the circuit like an air gap. Maybe an idea to explore...
Yes PM I hope your wife is ok, I know your concern, my thoughts are with you both
Regards
Mike
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.01, 15:08:22
Data:
mag phase:
time 147.6us
mean voltage -5.06V
mean current 3.8mA
Energy t*V*I = 2.8uJ
demag phase:
time: 62.04us
mean voltage: 12.48V
mean current: -19.64mA
Energy: t*V*I: 15.2uJ
That is a math error because the integral of means product is not the same as the integral of instantaneous products.
They become equal only when the voltages and currents are constant during the integration time (t).
OTOH: Estimating energy stored in a capacitor according to the formula E=½CV
2 is fine when the (C) does not change with voltage or time due to dielectric soak or other weirdness of the cap's dielectric.
P.S.
The energy delivered to MOSFET's drain circuit by the gate pulse is not negligible.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.02, 09:40:41
You have to calculate the energy by integrating the product of the instantaneous values of V and I, with the coil only feeding the resistance. I don't know if a cheap scope like Siglent or Rigol can do this directly. Apparently mine doesn't do the calculation using both channels, so if I had to do it, I would read the V(t), I(t) values on a hundred points spread over the magnetization/demagnetization time, and I would have the sigma of the products calculated by Excel.
Anyway, there is no doubt that a variable flux goes through the recovery coil since it supplies current to the LEDs. Conversely, feeding this coil will certainly make a voltage appear at the terminals of the toroidal coil, I take the bet with confidence.
If this is not proof that a flux is shared between the two coils, a coherent alternative explanation will have to be provided, along with why it would differ experimentally from the first.
F6FLT,
I have removed the air coil diodes, 22uF caps and one 10K resistor, so it now only has one 10K resistor as load, see updated diagram below.
The air coil now shows these signals (yellow voltage, green current and red calculated (V*I) power, see screenshot 1:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44042;image)
When i now let my scope calculate the instantaneous values of V and I of the magnetization phase only while zoomed in (between the 2 purple cursors) i get this screenshot 1:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44044;image)
Between those purple cursors (148.4us) we have in yellow the magnetization voltage, in green the magnetization current and in red the calculated magnetization power (V*I) as 1mW.
If we now multiply this power with the time (148.4us) we should have the energy being 0.148uJ of this magnetization phase.
Doing the same for the demagnetization phase shows the results in screenshot 3:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44046;image)
again, between the purple cursors (5.88us) we have the yellow demagnetization voltage, in green the demagnetization current and in red the calculated power (V*I) as 1.8W.
Multiplying this power with the time (5.88us), we should have the energy of the demagnetization phase being 10.6uJ.
So with this method we have a different outcome, but still more energy out of the demagnetization phase then for the magnetization phase.
Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2022.04.02, 19:12:18
That is a math error because the integral of means product is not the same as the integral of instantaneous products.
They become equal only when the voltages and currents are constant during the integration time (t).
OTOH: Estimating energy stored in a capacitor according to the formula E=½CV2 is fine when the (C) does not change with voltage or time due to dielectric soak or other weirdness of the cap's dielectric.
P.S.
The energy delivered to MOSFET's drain circuit by the gate pulse is not negligible.
Thanks verpies, both Partzman and F6FLT pointed to that too, so i just tried F6FLT's suggestion to recalculate, see above post.
Partzman his suggestion (still using the diodes, caps and resistors) i will try next if i understand what he meant :)
Itsu
What I have proposed is a way to correctly measure what Naudin wanted to measure. But is it really the magnetizing energy?
Well, no.
The magnetization energy is the energy stored by the coil and its core, while what it measures is the energy supplied to the resistor in parallel to the coil.
The toroidal coil feeds the cylindrical coil which feeds the resistor, so the energy supplied is :
W = ∫(R*I(t)² + 0.5*L*I(t)² ).dt , also equal to ∫ (U(t)*I(t) + 0.5*L*I(t)² ).dt
As for the demagnetization energy, it is indeed ∫R*I(t)² = ∫ (U(t)*I(t) but probably more, because part of it is certainly returned to the toroidal coil. Nevertheless U(t)*I(t) gives us a default value.
So we have to recalculate the magnetization energy by adding 0.5*L*I(t)² in the sum. It is of course greater than what you have calculated.
[What I say above is without any oratorical precautions like "I believe that" or "imho" but of course I am not infallible and everyone can correct me if I say something wrong]
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.02, 17:10:38
In the simulation, the variable flux seems to be of the same level as the fixed flux. It seems physically impossible to me that the field created by a coil of 200 turns and a few amperes is of the same order of magnitude as that of the neodymium magnets, which represent tens to hundreds of kiloampere-turns it seems.
I have to correct you on your misconception here. A ring core does not suffer from the geometric demagnetization factor so the full effect of the permeability comes into place. With 200 turns at 1 amp wound onto a core having mu = 1000 the internal field is equivalent to having that 200 turns wound on air and carrying 200 kiloamps. That is very much into neodymium magnet territory. So it is very easy to drive the ring core into saturation. When you think about it there is little difference between a permeable material at saturation (all atomic dipoles aligned) and a permanent magnet material fully magnetized (all atomic dipoles aligned). And there is not a significant difference in atomic dipole density. So a combination of the two (like the MEG and the experiment being discussed here) could have anomalous effects. Talking about the MEG I have some views to express but that is better put onto a dedicated MEG thread, and that I will do now.
Smudge
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.03, 08:13:18
What I have proposed is a way to correctly measure what Naudin wanted to measure. But is it really the magnetizing energy?
Well, no.
The magnetization energy is the energy stored by the coil and its core, while what it measures is the energy supplied to the resistor in parallel to the coil.
The toroidal coil feeds the cylindrical coil which feeds the resistor, so the energy supplied is :
W = ∫(R*I(t)² + 0.5*L*I(t)² ).dt , also equal to ∫ (U(t)*I(t) + 0.5*L*I(t)² ).dt
As for the demagnetization energy, it is indeed ∫R*I(t)² = ∫ (U(t)*I(t) but probably more, because part of it is certainly returned to the toroidal coil. Nevertheless U(t)*I(t) gives us a default value.
So we have to recalculate the magnetization energy by adding 0.5*L*I(t)² in the sum. It is of course greater than what you have calculated.
[What I say above is without any oratorical precautions like "I believe that" or "imho" but of course I am not infallible and everyone can correct me if I say something wrong]
F6FLT,
thanks for your insights in these, there are always some "ifs" and "buts" attached to every little detail, that is one thing (of many) i have learned from verpies in these years.
Also now when things look obvious, there is always a layer deeper to be taken into account.
Anyway, i am lousy with math, but when you say "adding 0.5*L*I(t)² in the sum" (magnetization), i guess you mean with "L" the inductance of the air coil (18mH), with "I" the current at magnetization (261.3uA) and with "(t)" the magnetization time (148.4us).
Putting that into your formula, i get: (0.5 x 0.018 x 0.0002613 x 0.0001484)² which equals to 1.2e-19 which is very small.
Itsu
Itsu
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.04.03, 09:02:41
I have to correct you on your misconception here. A ring core does not suffer from the geometric demagnetization factor so the full effect of the permeability comes into place. With 200 turns at 1 amp wound onto a core having mu = 1000 the internal field is equivalent to having that 200 turns wound on air and carrying 200 kiloamps.
...
I agree, thank you, the permeability counts. So in this case as already said "a strong variable flux also modifies the permeability", and so the toroidal inductance depends on time.
If this is really the case and we inject a sine signal in the toroidal coil then the current should not be sinusoidal anymore, and we should see new frequency components appear. It is to be checked.
The toroidal core sinks partially into the cylindrical coil so the inductance of this one will also depend on time. We will assume that this variation remains negligible, otherwise the calculation will be complicated.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.03, 12:14:32
...
Anyway, i am lousy with math, but when you say "adding 0.5*L*I(t)² in the sum" (magnetization), i guess you mean with "L" the inductance of the air coil (18mH), with "I" the current at magnetization (261.3uA) and with "(t)" the magnetization time (148.4us).
Putting that into your formula, i get: (0.5 x 0.018 x 0.0002613 x 0.0001484)² which equals to 1.2e-19 which is very small.
Itsu
Itsu
I don't think so. L is the inductance of the air coil, but U(t) and I(t) are the instantaneous values of each point measured by the scope. To approximate an integral, we make a sum of a calculus with discrete values taken at constant interval (which corresponds to "dt"). So we have to take the values U(t), I(t) over the time period P that we are interested in. If you can not directly provide a calculation formula to the scope, I suppose that if it is connected to a PC in ethernet or USB, the scope can provide the measurements, each at a time interval T corresponding probably to its sampling frequency (that in MS/s) or to a chosen value (I have never tried).
We then transfer them to Excel, with U in column A, and I in column B, we just have to add in column C the formula =A1*B1+0.5*0.636*B1^2 (0.636 is the inductance value L). This gives us the instantaneous power U*I+0.5*L*I² for the first measurement.
Then we copy the formula of column C on all the lines, each line corresponding to values measured by the scope, so we have in column C all the instantaneous powers measured.
And at the bottom of column C, if we have for example 400 measurements over the period P, we add the formula =SUM(C1:C400)*T where T is the time interval between each measurement, which gives the energy over the period P of 400 measurements (If the scope provides the measurements at a sampling rate of 5 MS/s, we will have T=1/5000000).
Without guarantee, I may have forgotten something (I count on Smudge for the corrections ;) ). I think I'm getting tired of math... I've lost the habit. >:(
F6FLT,
thanks, my scope does have advanced math capabilities, but all measurements up till now point to higher demagnetization energy then magnetization energy, only the amounts differ, also probably due to subtle differences in toroid core placing on the air coil etc.
I will leave it at that for now, leaving the question if the 2 diode, resistors and caps method is the correct one to measure it open.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.03, 19:02:22
...but all measurements up till now point to higher demagnetization energy then magnetization energy...
I want to believe it, but if your measurements don't take into account 1/2*L*I(t)², they don't indicate the magnetization/demagnetization energy what you are looking for.
But if i add 1/2*L*I(t)² to the magnetization energy i get my 0.148uJ plus your (0.5 x 0.018 x 0.0002613 x 0.0001484)² which = 1.2e-19, i still get 0.14840000....uJ
If my math is correct, so magnetization: 0.148uJ, demagnetization: 10.6uJ
Itsu
In my post #827 i had the following questions:
QuoteQuestions:
# is this the correct way to measure the difference in energy going into and out off an air coil?
# if correct, is there a way to harvest this difference and get some useful work out of it?
# MarkE mentioned in the mentiond OU.com thread that the difference on the scope (voltages) are zero, so why do the voltages on the caps show different?
# in my video it shows that the "flux gating source" needs to have its magnets positioned a specific way (horizontally), for the effect to show, JL Naudin shows his magnets are vertical.
Why is that so in my case, i mean the magnets saturate the finemet core no matter how they are positioned me thinks.
If we leave the first one open for now, and assuming we do have a difference in favor of demagnetization energy, what would be the answer for question 2:
# is there a way to harvest this difference and get some useful work out of it?
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.04, 08:50:31
If my math is correct, so magnetization: 0.148uJ, demagnetization: 10.6uJ
This is unusual because when an inductor is charged by a constant voltage source through a series resistance, then part of the energy is stored in the inductor and the remainder is dissipated as heat in that resistance.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2684.0;attach=31149)
The ratio of these two energies is dependent on the charging time like this:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2684.0;attach=21886)
The energy flows into the inductor most rapidly at 0.69 Tau and the rate of that flow decreases afterwards (asymptotically down to zero).
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2684.0;attach=44057)
Anyway, if you can start with a charged capacitor and use the energy stored in it, to energize the inductor and later recover this energy back from the inductor into the capacitor, so that the same capacitor ends up with a higher voltage, then this would confirm your calculations.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.04, 08:50:31
But if i add 1/2*L*I(t)² to the magnetization energy i get my 0.148uJ plus your (0.5 x 0.018 x 0.0002613 x 0.0001484)² which = 1.2e-19, i still get 0.14840000....uJ
If my math is correct, so magnetization: 0.148uJ, demagnetization: 10.6uJ
Itsu
As said above but I am not very good at explaining things, your math is not correct unless I is constant.
But I is not constant.
A sum of squared values is not equal to the square of the sum. So you can't take the mean value of I for your calculation. Is that what you did or did I miss something?
Quote from: verpies on 2022.04.04, 11:53:15
This is unusual because when an inductor is charged by a constant voltage source through a series resistance, then part of the energy is stored in the inductor and the remainder is dissipated as heat in that resistance.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2684.0;attach=31149)
The ratio of these two energies is dependent on the charging time like this:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2684.0;attach=21886)
The energy flows into the inductor most rapidly at 0.69 Tau and the rate of that flow decreases afterwards (asymptotically down to zero).
Anyway, if you can start with a charged capacitor and use the energy stored in it, to energize the inductor and later recover this energy back from the inductor into the capacitor, so that the same capacitor ends up with a higher voltage, then this would confirm your calculations.
Thanks, but that will be hard to do as according to Smudge, in an air coil, the mag. / demag. energies must be the same.
So this anomaly (if it exists) must come from the driving toroid or the combination of driving toroid and air coil.
Measurements / calculations on the driving toroid shows its not coming from there (COP << 1), so it must (if it exists) come from the the combination toroid / air coil.
As the overall COP is also way below 1, i doubt there will be enough energy in the starting charged cap.
Itsu
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.04, 11:58:14
As said above but I am not very good at explaining things, your math is not correct unless I is constant.
But I is not constant.
A sum of squared values is not equal to the square of the sum. So you can't take the mean value of I for your calculation. Is that what you did or did I miss something?
OK, i see what you mean.
I used for a I its rms value during the magnetization time.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.03, 19:02:22
..., my scope does have advanced math capabilities, but all measurements up till now point to higher demagnetization energy then magnetization energy,
Can it do INTEGRAL(Ch1 * Ch2) or ACCUMULATE(Ch1 * Ch2) ?
If it can, then the input energy can be displayed directly.
The only problems I can foresee is zeroing the integral at the beginning of the cycle, too high V/div settings causing vertical quantization errors ...and placing the voltage probe at the wrong side of the CSR (if CSR is used).
I use the current probe, so no csr.
The advanced math capabilities are as shown here:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44060;image)
So yes, it can do INTEGRAL(Ch1 * Ch4)
When doing so on the magnetization phase of the air core when loaded with a 10K resistor only, i get screenshot 1:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44062;image)
So 152.4nWs(nJ) = 0.152uJ. Which is very similar as the 0.147uJ i found yesterday.
Doing the same for the demagnetization phase of this air core, i get screenshot 2:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44064;image)
So 4.718uWs = 4.7uJ Which is half of the 10.6uJ i found yesterday
Itsu
Can't argue with these measurements.
P.S.
Indeed Ws = J.
How does that Avaramenko-style output circuit behave when you connect it to a secondary winding of a ferrite transformer, while the primary current is an asymmetrical triangle wave, from e.g.: FG + TCA (https://i.stack.imgur.com/lcgie.png) ?
FYI: Higher dΦ/dt induces higher voltage in an open winding, but the dΦ/dt does not influence the current induced in a shorted winding ( dB/dt does not either ).
In the absence of resistance, that current depends only* on ΔΦ.
* I had a nasty debate about this with the late MarkE if you remember.
Using a small ferrite 1:1 transformer, the FG to primary measuring the current with the current probe (green)
Yellow probe to secondary which is loaded with this 2x diode, 2x 10K resistors and 2x 22uF caps:
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.04, 19:49:15
Using a small ferrite 1:1 transformer, the FG to primary measuring the current with the current probe (green)
Looks like that transformer's primary inductance is too small for that driving frequency.
Also, can you make that triangular waveform a little more symmetrical - like 20/80%.
Verpies
QuoteThe energy flows into the inductor most rapidly at 0.69 Tau and the rate of that flow decreases afterwards (asymptotically down to zero).
Anyway, if you can start with a charged capacitor and use the energy stored in it, to energize the inductor and later recover this energy back from the inductor into the capacitor, so that the same capacitor ends up with a higher voltage, then this would confirm your calculations.
This was a part of my experiments on the two capacitor paradox.
With a two capacitor source/sink setup the final energy is simply a function of the voltage on the caps following Energy=1/2CV^2. It doesn't matter what the transfer frequency, period or waveform is or the load type we always get an accurate account of the initial and final energy. It is simply the best setup to accurately measure the input versus output energy bar none.
My initial setup can be found here...https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3994.0
We can also determine the real time resistance/induction energy split. Following the 50% rule any resistance will always yield a 50% loss, any induction will lower the loss tending towards 100% energy transfer minus any other losses in the system such as the source/sink or component losses. Thus we can send a volume of energy through the system to determine a baseline for system losses then add an inductance or other component characteristic and determine it's real time value based on the difference above the 50% transfer rule at any given time period.
Do you understand the value of this?, were no longer measuring something as simple as a voltage drop but an energy state within the system. We can determine whether it is tending towards an energy gain or an energy loss. Not something as simplistic as voltage/current or resistance/induction within a system but the energy state.
Think of it this way, we see a FE device but it is not a device but a material system to transform energy. The only thing that matters is energy because that is the only thing which can be transformed. Energy is everywhere in everything thus it becomes a matter of energy accounting determining what is happening where and why in any given time period. If we want to understand energy then we should follow the energy not artifacts which tend to confuse the matter...
What is energy?... how, where, when and why.
Regards
AC
Again INTEGRAL(Ch1 * Ch4) does not give the magnetisation energy, but the energy consumed in the resistor.
The magnetisation energy is INT(1/2*L*I²).
In the case of demagnetisation, this is ok because the energy that powers the resistor is the one that was stored in L so INT(1/2*L*I²) = INT(U*I) (and assuming that there is negligible interaction with the toroidal coil).
In the case of magnetisation, INT(U*I) represents energy supplied but lost in the resistance, equal to INT(R*I²), and INT(1/2*L*I²) the energy stored by the inductance which is the real magnetisation energy. So the total energy supplied during magnetisation is INT(1/2*L*I²) + INT(U*I). This is the formula to be provided to the scope.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.05, 08:21:08
Again INTEGRAL(Ch1 * Ch4) does not give the magnetisation energy, but the energy consumed in the resistor.
The magnetisation energy is INT(1/2*L*I²).
Please draw a maximally simplified schematic of the energy measurement, which you are referring to, so we can discuss it (handwritten or mousewritten is fine).
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.04.04, 21:20:09
Do you understand the value of this?, were no longer measuring something as simple as a voltage drop but an energy state within the system.
Yes, and that energy measurement is very trustworthy when the cap's dielectric is perfect, i.e.: no soaking or permittivity deviation with various voltages across it.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.05, 08:21:08
Again INTEGRAL(Ch1 * Ch4) does not give the magnetisation energy, but the energy consumed in the resistor.
The magnetisation energy is INT(1/2*L*I²).
In the case of demagnetisation, this is ok because the energy that powers the resistor is the one that was stored in L so INT(1/2*L*I²) = INT(U*I) (and assuming that there is negligible interaction with the toroidal coil).
In the case of magnetisation, INT(U*I) represents energy supplied but lost in the resistance, equal to INT(R*I²), and INT(1/2*L*I²) the energy stored by the inductance which is the real magnetisation energy. So the total energy supplied during magnetisation is INT(1/2*L*I²) + INT(U*I). This is the formula to be provided to the scope.
F6FLT,
So i added INT(1/2*L*I²) to the formula (using (I*I) instead of I²), see screenshot.
The result is indeed slightly higher, 197nWs (0.197uJ) instead of the 0.152uJ found yesterday.
So still a way lower magnetization energy as the demagnetization energy.
Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2022.04.04, 20:34:15
Looks like that transformer's primary inductance is too small for that driving frequency.
Also, can you make that triangular waveform a little more symmetrical - like 20/80%.
First primary used was 58uH, now using a primary of 2.3mH (sec. = 110uH).
Input triangle is 20/80%.
Yellow secondary voltage with as load the 2x diode, 2x 10K resistors and 2x 22uF caps
green primary current
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.05, 12:58:20
First primary used was 58uH, now using a primary of 2.3mH (sec. = 110uH).
Input triangle is 20/80%.
Yellow secondary voltage with as load the 2x diode, 2x 10K resistors and 2x 22uF caps
green primary current
Itsu
That is much nicer. The primary current is distorted, though (not exactly triangular/sawtooth).
Did you drive the primary with FG + TCA (https://i.stack.imgur.com/lcgie.png) ...or with your FG alone (which is a voltage source) ?
I was wondering where TCA stands for.
So driving it with the FG only.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.05, 15:43:10
I was wondering where TCA stands for.
TransConductance Amplifier (TCA or VCVS)
...and its doppelgänger:
TransImpedance Amplifier (TIA or CCVS)
At unity gain the TCA is also called "voltage-to-current converter" (V2C) and the TIA is also called "current-to-voltage converter" (C2V).
The former is the right way to analog drive an LED
* and the latter is the right way to pick up an analog signal from a photodiode.
* ...and when driving an inductor with it, the current is guaranteed to have the same shape as the TCA's input - even when the inductor's core saturates. This is true within the limits of its compliance voltage - of course.
Quote from: verpies on 2022.04.05, 09:21:34
Please draw a maximally simplified schematic of the energy measurement, which you are referring to, so we can discuss it (handwritten or mousewritten is fine).
Itsu has already provided the schematic in reply #870, it is simply the inductance L of the cylindrical coil connected on R4:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44050;image)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.05, 16:30:07
Itsu has already provided the schematic in reply #870, it is simply the inductance L of the cylindrical coil connected on R4:
When jumping in, experience has taught me to always verify the subject of an ongoing discussion.
In this case a signal (i) from a current probe can be used to calculate the energy dissipated in this resistor (R4) during demagnetization as E=INTG(i
2*R4).
Also, since the voltage measured across this resistor is proportional to the current flowing through this resistor, a signal from a regular voltage probe (v) can be used to calculate the energy dissipated in this resistor as E=INTG(v
2/R4).
Do you agree ?
The formula E=½Li
2 might not give the correct energy dissipated in R4 during demagnetization if the decaying magnetic flux heats up some metal or core or semiconductor junction, or mutual induction happens with another inductor ...or when the inductance (L) had been measured erroneously, e.g. due to inter-turn capacitance and different measurement frequency.
If a large ideal capacitor is available, then Allcandian's method of energy measurement seems the simplest but the R4 needs to be removed and substituted with that cap and peak cap voltage logged, because without a blocking diode, that cap will discharge back into the inductor (causing decaying LC oscillations).
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.05, 12:43:11
F6FLT,
So i added INT(1/2*L*I²) to the formula (using (I*I) instead of I²), see screenshot.
The result is indeed slightly higher, 197nWs (0.197uJ) instead of the 0.152uJ found yesterday.
So still a way lower magnetization energy as the demagnetization energy.
Itsu
So far we have assumed that the cylindrical coil L is not coupled to the toroidal coil by a shared flux leakage.
If L is not coupled, V=L*di/dt, V being the voltage across the resistor, and so the measurement protocol is good.
But if L is coupled to the toroidal coil like two ordinary coils, which is my assumption, then V=L*di/dt + M*di2/dt where M is the coupling coefficient and i2 the current in the toroidal coil.
In this case energy is exchanged between the two coils, and a non-symmetrical phenomenon, notably because of hysteresis, would explain the imbalance in the measurement in L between magnetization and demagnetization, which is incorrect because the current i2 is not taken into account.
If we want to be rigorous, it is at the primary, on the toroidal coil, that we must measure the power balance (otherwise we would have to know M, but the measurement becomes complicated, and if M is not constant because the permeability of the toroid varies, it will be even worse!) .
@Verpies
Naudin's assumption is that the flux in the toroidal coil does not leak, and this is the assumption taken to make the measurement.
In this case we have a coil (the cylindrical one) that is loaded by a current I that we measure. I agree that INTG(v2/R4) gives the power dissipated.
At demagnetization, only the coil provides the current, so we must have INTG(v2/R4) = INT(0.5*L*I²), and that's what I said above by taking INTG(R4*I²) rather than INTG(v2/R4), which is the same.
We should have only added the winding resistance to R4, Itsu should add it to R4 it if it's not negligible.
But if the toroidal coil is leaking, which I think it is, then we are in the trivial case of 2 coupled coils, and so I agree with what you say, the parameters to be taken into account on the side of the toroidal coil because of coupling, complicate things.
Do we display the intg(CH1*CH4) MATH output as MEAN like this (i have my doubts):
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.05, 20:38:14
Do we display the intg(CH1*CH4) MATH output as MEAN like this (i have my doubts):
I don't think so.
An integral is like a continuous SUM (in a DSO it is more discrete than continuous because of the clocked sampling in YT mode).
An arithmetic mean is a QUOTIENT of that sum over the number of your samples (on DSO). There are two other "means" - geometric and harmonic.
Integrating v*i or i
2R or v
2/R yields Joules (or Ws), which are units of energy.
Dividing energy by time (the DSO samples in YT mode), like the "arithmetical mean" does, yields Ws / s = W, which are units of power (a.k.a. energy flow)
This is my take on the topology replicated by Itsu as presented by JL Naudin. The first pix below shows the toroid transformer used in the following tests and it consists of two equal counter-wound windings with one pair of adjacent ends are connected while the other adjacent ends are driven with opposite polarities. The result is that one pole is produced at one pair of adjacent ends while the opposite pole is produced at the other pair of adjacent ends. This creates an 'H' field both on the outside and inside of the toroid between the poles. This toroid produces the same field pattern as the PM biased toroid but is far easier to understand IMO.
If we now properly place a diode across the output air coil terminals, we will see a current in the secondary as shown in the 1st scope pix. If we the reverse the polarity of this diode we will have a current waveform shown in the 2nd scope pix.
We can then compare the uAs areas of the mag and demag phases in the 3rd and 4th scope pix respectively. The magnitude of current reached during the demag phase on the air coil which is ~980uH .
The 5th scope pix shows the magnitude of current reached during the demag phase on the air coil which is ~980uH .
For comparison, the 6th 5th scope pix shows the current differential between the end of the mag and demag phases with the air coil shorted. I would attribute the difference between the two due to the voltage drop across the diode.
The 7th 6th and 8th 7th scope pix show the Pin and Pout of the toroid respectively.
The simple question is, what is creating the the current differential and As areas between the mag and demag phases? Is it useful? Is this device optimized for the most efficient energy transfer?
Regards,
Pm
Edit mistakes.
Quote from: verpies on 2022.04.05, 21:14:10
I don't think so.
An integral is like a continuous SUM (in a DSO it is more discrete than continuous because of the clocked sampling in YT mode).
An arithmetic mean is a QUOTIENT of that sum over the number of your samples (on DSO). There are two other "means" - geometric and harmonic.
Integrating v*i or i2R or v2/R yields Joules (or Ws), which are units of energy.
Dividing energy by time (the DSO samples in YT mode), like the "arithmetical mean" does, yields Ws / s = W, which are units of power (a.k.a. energy flow)
I agree, i did some tests and using this "mean" did not make sense.
Question is then, what should i use to display the Math: intg(CH1*CH4)?
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2022.04.05, 23:00:59
This is my take on the topology replicated by Itsu as presented by JL Naudin. The first pix below shows the toroid transformer used in the following tests and it consists of two equal counter-wound windings with one pair of adjacent ends are connected while the other adjacent ends are driven with opposite polarities. The result is that one pole is produced at one pair of adjacent ends while the opposite pole is produced at the other pair of adjacent ends. This creates an 'H' field both on the outside and inside of the toroid between the poles. This toroid produces the same field pattern as the PM biased toroid but is far easier to understand IMO.
If we now properly place a diode across the output air coil terminals, we will see a current in the secondary as shown in the 1st scope pix. If we the reverse the polarity of this diode we will have a current waveform shown in the 2nd scope pix.
We can then compare the uAs areas of the mag and demag phases in the 3rd and 4th scope pix respectively.
The 5th scope pix shows the magnitude of current reached during the demag phase on the air coil which is ~980uH .
For comparison, the 6th scope pix shows the current differential between the end of the mag and demag phases with the air coil shorted. I would attribute the difference between the two due to the voltage drop across the diode.
The 7th and 8th scope pix show the Pin and Pout of the toroid respectively.
The simple question is, what is creating the the current differential and As areas between the mag and demag phases? Is it useful? Is this device optimized for the most efficient energy transfer?
Regards,
Pm
PM,
your results look very similar as mine.
But i think you have missed putting up one screenshot (6?) as i count 7 screenshot while you say at the end: "the 7th and 8th scope pix..."
Anyway, good idea to use the "area" to show the difference in currents.
The COP on the toroid shows it is way below 1, but still the lesser magnetization energy on the air coil compared with its demagnetization energy.
Good questions.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.06, 08:10:48
I agree, i did some tests and using this "mean" did not make sense.
Question is then, what should i use to display the Math: intg(CH1*CH4)?
Itsu
I think i have figured out how to interpret the INTG(CH1*CH4) etc. data, see below screenshot
The datablock top right shows the cursor data (we are measuring between the red vertical cursors).
Cursor A is at time -154.8us and the energy there is 0
Cursor B is at time -6.400us and the energy there is 246.3nWs = 246.3nJ
The delta time (between cursors) is 148.4us and the delta energy (between cursors) is 246.3nWs (246.3nJ).
Divide this by time we get the power being 1.659mW.
So the red MEAN value at the bottom of the screen is the mean (average) of this energy which is NOT what we want.
So we can use the red HIGH value which will be the same as the value of cursor B / Delta energy in the top right box.
So in this example, the magnetization energy is not 152.4 (which is the mean value), but 246.3nWs = 246.3nJ.
This does not change much in the mag / demag relations as it still is in favor of the demag phase.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44062;image)
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.06, 15:16:11
I think i have figured out how to interpret the INTG(CH1*CH4) etc. data, see below screenshot
The datablock top right shows the cursor data (we are measuring between the red vertical cursors).
Cursor A is at time -154.8us and the energy there is 0
Cursor B is at time -6.400us and the energy there is 246.3nWs = 246.3nJ
The delta time (between cursors) is 148.4us and the delta energy (between cursors) is 246.3nWs (246.3nJ).
I agree
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.06, 15:16:11
Divide this by time we get the power being 1.659mW.
That is the average power inside this time interval.
It is a useful quantity.
Graphically it can be represented as the SLOPE of a line connecting the points at the cursors A and B.
In your scopeshot, the energy graph is a straight line already and by sheer coincidence it is almost the same as a straight line between points at cursors A and B.
But that does not always happen. Take a look at the fabricated examples attached below. The red trace is the energy vs. time graph (just like yours) and the SLOPE of the blue line is the average power between cursors A and B.
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.06, 15:16:11
So the red MEAN value at the bottom of the screen is the mean (average) of this energy which is NOT what we want.
Correct
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.04.06, 15:16:11
So we can use the red HIGH value which will be the same as the value of cursor B / Delta energy in the top right box.
Be careful if HIGH means MAXIMUM in this sentence.
That is only true because in your scopeshot, the energy level is monotonically increasing during the measured time interval (between cursors A and B) and coincides with the "average straight line" by sheer accident.
If the energy flow changes direction (power changes sign) then the integral of the energy will begin to decrease and can end up resembling e.g.: a triangle.
The MAXIMUM (peak) of this triangle will be different than the integrated energy at the end of the measured time interval. In other words: the HIGHEST level of that hypothetical triangle energy graph will be different than the FINAL energy level at time B (cursor B). The 2
nd fabricated example attached below, depicts such situation.
QuoteBe careful if HIGH means MAXIMUM in this sentence.
That is only true in this example because the energy level is monotonically increasing during the measured time interval (between cursor A nd B).
If the energy flow changes direction (power changes sign) then the integral of the energy will begin to decrease and can end up looking like a triangle. The MAXIMUM (peak) of this triangle will be different than the integrated energy at the end of the measured time interval. In other words: the HIGHEST level of that hypothetical triangle energy graph will be different than the FINAL energy level at time B (cursor B).
Right, that i just found out, better is to look at the red MATH trace and the energy delta value between the A and B cursors and not rely on the MEAN, HIGH or MAX notations at the bottom.
Not sure what the difference between HIGH and MAX is as they seem to do the same.
Itsu
Here are my first steps in magnetostatic modeling.
Preamble: for antenna modelling I use "CST Studio" which is one of the 2 or 3 most powerful electromagnetism modellers. For example, I designed an ultra-wideband 115-480 MHz antenna thanks to it, after 2 years of trial and error and extravagant models. I made this antenna, it is now on the roof, much better than any discone antenna, and the measurements totally confirmed the simulations, to my surprise. Certainly in the antenna studies available on the IEEE site, the engineers always show measurements that fit simulations, but I had doubts. So this software is reliable.
This is the first time I've tried quasi-static signals. To start, I only created the toroidal coil, with a constant current of 1A in a coil of 20 turns, and placed a cylindrical magnet along the diameter, with an intensity of 1T.
I took µ=80000 as constant permeability of the toroid (nanoperm), and µ=1.05 for the 1 T magnet (neodymium).
I left the conductivity at zero. The first picture gives the general appearance of the software, with the model. The next two give the B field, result of the simulation.
What is surprising is the considerable field created in the toroidal coil, since the software evaluates it at 13 T! Is this due to the enormous permeability or a simulation problem, I don't know yet. The result is that at only 1 T the field of the magnet remains blue and on the vector view, insignificant compared to the field in the torus.
We also notice that the flux is not constant in the torus, it is clearly concentrated towards the center, which is normal because the path is shorter.
Next step: provide the nanoperm permeability variation table with field strength. CST studio indeed deals with field-dependent permeabilities. We will then see if the intensity of B remains as great or not, and the influence of the magnet. I think that the decrease of the permeability with the field intensity will restore a more realistic value of the field in the toroid.
Then I will try to approach a variable field by taking a sine current.
Quote from: verpies on 2022.04.06, 20:27:40
I added more details to my last post
I have redone the magnetization / demagnetization energy measurements / calculations of the air coil using a 10K resistor only as load.
Screenshot 1 shows the magnetization energy according the F6FLT's his MATH suggestion.
Measurements are done between the 2 vertical red cursors:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44118;image)
Yellow: the magnetization phase voltage
green: the magnetization phase current
white: the magnetization phase power 1.783mW (bottom white R1 mean value)
red: the magnetization phase energy 259.2nWs = 0.259uJ
Screenshot 2 shows the demagnetization energy.
Again, measurements are done between the 2 vertical red cursors:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=44120;image)
Yellow: the magnetization phase voltage
green: the magnetization phase current
white: the magnetization phase power 1.774W (bottom white R1 mean value)
red: the magnetization phase energy 9.943uWs = 9.943uJ
Itsu
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.07, 11:20:07
Here are my first steps in magnetostatic modeling.
Preamble: for antenna modelling I use "CST Studio" which is one of the 2 or 3 most powerful electromagnetism modellers. For example, I designed an ultra-wideband 115-480 MHz antenna thanks to it, after 2 years of trial and error and extravagant models. I made this antenna, it is now on the roof, much better than any discone antenna, and the measurements totally confirmed the simulations, to my surprise. Certainly in the antenna studies available on the IEEE site, the engineers always show measurements that fit simulations, but I had doubts. So this software is reliable.
This is the first time I've tried quasi-static signals. To start, I only created the toroidal coil, with a constant current of 1A in a coil of 20 turns, and placed a cylindrical magnet along the diameter, with an intensity of 1T.
I took µ=80000 as constant permeability of the toroid (nanoperm), and µ=1.05 for the 1 T magnet (neodymium).
I left the conductivity at zero. The first picture gives the general appearance of the software, with the model. The next two give the B field, result of the simulation.
What is surprising is the considerable field created in the toroidal coil, since the software evaluates it at 13 T! Is this due to the enormous permeability or a simulation problem, I don't know yet. The result is that at only 1 T the field of the magnet remains blue and on the vector view, insignificant compared to the field in the torus.
We also notice that the flux is not constant in the torus, it is clearly concentrated towards the center, which is normal because the path is shorter.
Next step: provide the nanoperm permeability variation table with field strength. CST studio indeed deals with field-dependent permeabilities. We will then see if the intensity of B remains as great or not, and the influence of the magnet. I think that the decrease of the permeability with the field intensity will restore a more realistic value of the field in the toroid.
Then I will try to approach a variable field by taking a sine current.
F6FLT,
very nice, looking great already O0
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Unfortunately this "COP" = 9.943 / 0.259 = 38 is only apparent. The cylindrical coil does not have a core of high permeability, so it cannot retain much energy. I therefore see it only as the secondary, not very coupled, of the transformer it constitutes with the toroid coil.
I deduce that the demagnetization energy of the cylindrical coil is provided by the demagnetization of the toroid, and that the lack of symmetry is due to the fact that during demagnetization, the di/dt in the toroid is much greater than during magnetization, from which the cylindrical coil recovers more signal.
Measuring these energies on the side of the toroid should make the difference disappear.
From my simulation I was very surprised by the field strength in the toroid. As the nanoperm saturates at 1.2 T, of course the simulation with its 13T is not yet really physical but it is an indication: the easy saturation of the toroid suggests a flux leakage, thus a transformer operation, with primary and secondary poorly coupled.
I can quite easily put a saturation curve for the nanoperm, and I will see what the simulation gives. On the other hand it is much more difficult to put a remanent field, so at first I will simulate without hysteresis.
It is clear that we can't wait for OU in a simulation, so why do it ? On the one hand, if the result is in accordance with the experiment, then it is useless to invoke, as we often see in the field, new phenomena, exotic theories or to pretend that it would be a way for OU, and on the other hand, we can highlight unexpected situations which can usefully orient our ideas of setups.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.08, 07:24:17
Hi Itsu,
Unfortunately this "COP" = 9.943 / 0.259 = 38 is only apparent. The cylindrical coil does not have a core of high permeability, so it cannot retain much energy. I therefore see it only as the secondary, not very coupled, of the transformer it constitutes with the toroid coil.
I deduce that the demagnetization energy of the cylindrical coil is provided by the demagnetization of the toroid, and that the lack of symmetry is due to the fact that during demagnetization, the di/dt in the toroid is much greater than during magnetization, from which the cylindrical coil recovers more signal.
Measuring these energies on the side of the toroid should make the difference disappear.
From my simulation I was very surprised by the field strength in the toroid. As the nanoperm saturates at 1.2 T, of course the simulation with its 13T is not yet really physical but it is an indication: the easy saturation of the toroid suggests a flux leakage, thus a transformer operation, with primary and secondary poorly coupled.
I can quite easily put a saturation curve for the nanoperm, and I will see what the simulation gives. On the other hand it is much more difficult to put a remanent field, so at first I will simulate without hysteresis.
It is clear that we can't wait for OU in a simulation, so why do it ? On the one hand, if the result is in accordance with the experiment, then it is useless to invoke, as we often see in the field, new phenomena, exotic theories or to pretend that it would be a way for OU, and on the other hand, we can highlight unexpected situations which can usefully orient our ideas of setups.
Yes, this is exactly what I have shown in my bench example with the bucking toroid for the induction source!
Regards,
Pm
Result of the simulation.
I had to switch to 2D processing because of computation time issues, but the result is just as relevant.
We have a neodymium magnet of 1 T on the diameter of a nanoperm toroid of high permeability but saturable. The B/H curve is provided as a parameter to CST (see picture).
On the toroid is wound a 20 turns coil fed by a 1A DC current, creating a toroidal magnetic flux.
In the left half of the toroid, the field created by the current opposes that of the magnet, while on the right it is added. The field on the left is therefore lower than on the right.
Since the permeability of the nanoperm depends inversely on the field strength, it is greater on the left than on the right. In the results, the permeability along the torus, which can be visualized by CST, as well as the B field in vector and scalar form are given.
All this corresponds to what we would expect, except for one thing: we do not see any "flux leakage" as such. So why does the cylindrical coil capture energy? Analysis to follow...
Now let's place a cylindrical coil under the torus.
This one sees the looped flux of the toroid. If the permeability is constant in the toroid, Φ1 and Φ2 are equal, and since they are in opposite directions as seen from the cylindrical coil, the overall flux Φ=Φ1-Φ2 through it is zero. There is no induced current.
But we have seen that the neodymium magnet modifies the permeability of the toroid differently on the left and on the right, depending on whether it opposes or adds to the field created by the toroidal coil.
Since the permeability is different on the left and on the right, then Φ1 is no longer equal to Φ2. And if the current in the coil is variable, then Φ=Φ1-Φ2 is variable as well, and this flux variation creates the EMF produced in the cylindrical coil. QED.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.08, 13:33:24
All this corresponds to what we would expect, except for one thing: we do not see any "flux leakage" as such. So why does the cylindrical coil capture energy?
If you look at the air space inside the ring core you can see blue dots, except they are not dots but tiny arrows. You can just make out the arrows at the top and bottom of that air space. Note that at the left and right there are some some points where the blue dots (arrows!) are missing. Thus your software has some cut-off where if the field is below a certain level it will not attempt to write arrows. The fact that there is flux leakage inside the ring core tells you that there is a scalar magnetic potential drop along the surface, as indeed there must be because the core reluctance is not zero. Thus there is flux leakage on the outside of the ring core but your software does not pick it up. In FEMM you can adjust the limits for the displayed levels as I did in my earlier post (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg98314#msg98314 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg98314#msg98314)) that clearly shows that external flux.
Smudge
Edit. there is one blue dot outside the ring at just before the 9 o'clock position!
@smudge
Flux leaks always occur, but when the air permeability is really low compared to that of the materials, it is negligible.
In the attached picture, I have visualized it, by putting less arrows but of larger size, we can indeed act on their size and density, we see them better. The arrows indicate the intensity and direction of the B-field.
The "bounding box" that I also display is the space in which the simulation gives its results, and we can see that the space around the torus is also treated.
In the hole of the toroid outside the magnet the field is weak, and outside, if we see nothing or almost nothing, it is completely negligible.
This is not what can explain the force of lighting of LEDs in the experiment of Naudin.
Note that the regularly spaced points just around the toroid, in the hole and outside, are not tiny field arrows but just the representation of the cross-sections of the conductors of the toroidal coil.
A variable flux must only cut the surface of the circuit to generate an EMF. Does it say that it must surround the circuit? I don't think so, now. Simply making a round trip at the input of the cylindrical coil, with the outgoing of different intensity than the return as seen in my answer #917, results in a net flux, not zero, and thus to the EMF across the cylindrical coil. If I'm not mistaken, it is indeed the flux in the toroid that generates the EMF, that's what this simulation taught me, and it changes my way of seeing and opens new perspectives...
But be careful, there is a trap: it is not the addition of the flux of the magnet with the one of the coil that creates the imbalance, but the modification of the permeability through which the variable flux evolves. If the permeability is fixed, and although the flux of the magnet always adds to the toroidal field on one side and subtracts from it on the other, no net flux will be recovered by the cylindrical coil. A static field cannot participate in any way in the induction, except indirectly, as we can see, if it modifies the medium which modifies the variable field round trip which creates induction.
What do you think about it ?
Smudge and F6FLT,
Why are you guys insistent on putting the PM inside the toroid? I thought Itsu's bench device has the PM placed on the outside of the toroid which is a completely different topology is it not?
Regards,
Pm
@Parzman
It doesn't matter. It is the exact knowledge of the underlying principle that interests us. The form of implementation is secondary. I took this configuration for the simulation because Naudin proposes it in 2SGen Episode 5, and the up/down symmetry gives an advantage to the simulation for clarity (and probably computation time) because as Naudin says: "the magnetic lines are closed inside the toroidal core".
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.08, 19:21:17
In the hole of the toroid outside the magnet the field is weak, and outside, if we see nothing or almost nothing, it is completely negligible.
I disagree and the experiment shows that. If it were negligible there would be negligible voltage induction in the solenoid coil.
QuoteNote that the regularly spaced points just around the toroid, in the hole and outside, are not tiny field arrows but just the representation of the cross-sections of the conductors of the toroidal coil.
I disagree with respect to your earlier image where I have selected one part as shown below. You can't claim those blue points that are on a regular rectangular grid are representations of the conductors, and the one I have circled is definitely not a point but a tiny arrow. I stand by my view that your software doesn't show the field outside the toroid because it has a cut off below which it can't display. And that cut off is not a negligible value in this particular experiment.
QuoteA variable flux must only cut the surface of the circuit to generate an EMF. Does it say that it must surround the circuit? I don't think so, now. Simply making a round trip at the input of the cylindrical coil, with the outgoing of different intensity than the return as seen in my answer #917, results in a net flux, not zero, and thus to the EMF across the cylindrical coil. If I'm not mistaken, it is indeed the flux in the toroid that generates the EMF, that's what this simulation taught me, and it changes my way of seeing and opens new perspectives...
But be careful, there is a trap: it is not the addition of the flux of the magnet with the one of the coil that creates the imbalance, but the modification of the permeability through which the variable flux evolves. If the permeability is fixed, and although the flux of the magnet always adds to the toroidal field on one side and subtracts from it on the other, no net flux will be recovered by the cylindrical coil. A static field cannot participate in any way in the induction, except indirectly, as we can see, if it modifies the medium which modifies the variable field round trip which creates induction.
What do you think about it ?
You seem to think that it is the time variation of the permeability that is responsible, and that at any snapshot in time (which the simulations show) there will be negligible flux outside the toroid. I don't hold that view, there is flux outside the toroid and the time variations of that flux is responsible for the induction into the solenoid coil. In FEMM there is the facility to obtain the flux linkage in the solenoid coil and it is not zero when there is current in the toroidal winding. It is possible to do a series of FEMM snapshots with the current in the toroidal coil stepping through a sine wave and getting the flux linkage at each step. Then getting this data onto spreadsheet and calculating the voltage induced into the solenoid coil. That gives you the result of the experiment and I am sure it would agree with the measured values. It takes a long time to do this but it is doable. Can your software do this?
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.04.09, 08:57:50
...
I disagree with respect to your earlier image where I have selected one part as shown below. You can't claim those blue points that are on a regular rectangular grid are representations of the conductors, and the one I have circled is definitely not a point but a tiny arrow.
Yes, I can, and I reaffirm it. It would be good to consider the picture that goes with the comment I was making, and not another one.
I never said that all the arrows of the leakage field are conductor sections, but that conductor sections can be confused with arrows of the B field when they are too small.
I have put the image again, specifying some of these regularly spaced points, which are indeed the sections of the conductors of the toroidal coil, while through the hole of the toroid there are also the arrows indicating the field leaking through the air. It's not always easy to distinguish them from each other on other views like the one you took, where I had not intensified the size of the arrows.
Quote
I stand by my view that your software doesn't show the field outside the toroid because it has a cut off below which it can't display. And that cut off is not a negligible value in this particular experiment.
You seem to think that it is the time variation of the permeability that is responsible, and that at any snapshot in time (which the simulations show) there will be negligible flux outside the toroid. I don't hold that view, there is flux outside the toroid and the time variations of that flux is responsible for the induction into the solenoid coil. In FEMM there is the facility to obtain the flux linkage in the solenoid coil and it is not zero when there is current in the toroidal winding. It is possible to do a series of FEMM snapshots with the current in the toroidal coil stepping through a sine wave and getting the flux linkage at each step. Then getting this data onto spreadsheet and calculating the voltage induced into the solenoid coil. That gives you the result of the experiment and I am sure it would agree with the measured values. It takes a long time to do this but it is doable. Can your software do this?
Smudge
With CST I can't change the scale so that we can see better the very low levels of the field. I switched to logarithmic representation of the field, and same thing, I don't see anything significant outside the toroid.
What you say is what the courses say: there must be a flux passing through the center of the cylindrical coil and looping around it, so there must be a leakage field coming from the torus.
This may be the case, but it is not what I see on my simulation, nor on Naudin's FEMM simulation, so I made another hypothesis, admittedly daring.
Note however that the lowest permeability in the toroid remains at least above 1000 (where the field is strongest), so your external flux through the air of permeability 1 can only remain very low. Can it however be the cause of the LEDs lighting up, that remains to be demonstrated.
I am not saying that you are wrong but you have to prove your point. If you have a better simulation that allows to see this flux and that its intensity is compatible with the level of induction in the cylindrical coil, capable of lighting the LEDs well, with FEMM or other, show us.
@F6
Here is a FEMM run showing the flux lines inside the core and apparently none outside. I use a single turn conductor around the core (not modeled as a wire but a sheath). The same goes for the solenoid, a single turn as a cylinder. (FEMM can have turns but this way it is easy to use the results for any turns you care to imagine). I also show the results of flux linkage in the solenoid coil for different values of the current in the toroid. That might look negligible to you but when you multiply by the turns and then by the frequency the voltage is not negligible. Flux linkage is flux passing through the coil and returning outside the coil.
Smudge
FEMM also enables you to chart the normal component of B along a line. I have shown such a line in the image below as the thick black one, and the chart. There are definitely flux lines passing through that coil. FEMM also gives you the integral along that line with the result of average B.n=4.923e-4 and flux 2.56e-7 weber. The problem depth is 10mm as the flux is stated for that depth.
Smudge
@smudge
Thanks for the feedback. Is it possible to have FEMM calculate the flux that would pass through the hole of a cylindrical coil placed underneath? This is important to know if the induction of this flux would be sufficient to light the LEDs.
I have now moved on to practical work, testing a toroid with two opposing coils. I put an AC current in one and a DC current in the other, which replaces the magnet, and I have a test coil nearby connected to the scope. We can see perfectly the signal that appears as the DC current increases and as we approach saturation, a sign of the "leakage" of the toroid. The effect is not linear and causes harmonics of the AC signal.
I am preparing a new test where the DC current will pass through the 2 coils creating an opposition of the 2 fields in the 2 half toroids, exactly as the magnet did, while the AC will pass through the 2 coils connected for AC as if they were in series so that their field remains toroidal. The interest of the DC current is that we can adjust the saturation level, unlike the case with the magnet. I just want to familiarize myself with the phenomenon.
I still don't know how, experimentally, one can distinguish the case of a looped flux passing through the cylindrical coil, from the case of a looped but asymmetric flux simply passing near it without passing through it.
If the permeability imbalance between left and right is the cause of the flux leakage, then it should also be seen without any magnet causing it, simply by creating a toroid with each half having different permeability.
This is what I simulated. The toroid is made of a left half with µ=30000 and a right half with µ=1000. µ is constant in both cases, see 1st picture.
The two following pictures give the field B, with 2 cutting planes. No B field can be seen outside the toroid, not because there is none, but because it is too weak.
The second row of images gives the field H. This is where it is interesting. As we have B=µ.H, H does not depend on the medium, and here we see that H is far from being zero outside the toroid. This allows us to understand that B is not zero either, since outside the toroid B=µ0.H. And H, so B, can also be seen in the 2 planes of section, contrary to the views with B.
The last row of images gives the vector view of B, and two vector views of H. The view of H cut by the horizontal plane shows that H is small on the left and large on the right, which is the consequence that H=B/µ with µ much larger on the left than on the right, including outside the toroid. On the contrary, the view of H cut by the vertical plane shows the equality of H at the top and at the bottom.
The flux of B in the toroid is continuous in spite of the discontinuity of the permittivity, consequence that the field lines are closed (non divergence of B). It is the flux of H which is not, and we can also see from it that there are many leaks.
However, leakage does not explain everything. Because when the permeability is the same in both parts, we also have leaks.
So it remains to know
- how these leaks can create a looped field through the cylindrical coil, field intense enough to produce by induction the lighting of LEDs
- if these leaks are indeed due to the disparity of the permeability along the toroid,
- or if they are rather due to the variation of the permeability in time, the simulations made until now being static only whereas in the 2SGen the variation of the permeability is dynamic.
Below I show three images of the leakage flux from the ring core. I have adjusted the upper and lower bounds of the displayed contours so as to get those field lines. In the first image there is zero toroidal coil current and you will see from the bounds that the field is very weak. The flux linkage into the solenoid coil as a single turn is 4.046e-10 weber. It is not possible to adjust the bounds for the vector plots so FEMM can't show the vectors for this weak field. I have placed arrows to show the field direction.
The next image has toroidal coil current at 128 ampere-turns. The upper and lower bounds are now 1000 times greater and the flux linkage becomes 3.745e-7, also about 1000 times higher. Note that in reply #924 I show the flux linkage v. current and it is almost linear. The field shape and field direction is the same as in the first image.
The final image is for toroidal coil current at -128 ampere-turns. The same upper and lower bounds as in image 2. Also the same flux linkage, there has been no leakage flux reversal. The field shape and field direction is the same as in the first and second image.
It is clear from this that the saturating ring core is acting as a flux gate, gating flux from the magnet. At either polarity of the toroidal coil current flux from the magnet is allowed to escape. If that coil is driven with a sine wave the leakage flux follows a rectified sine wave, a series of half sine waves. Thus the output voltage in the solenoid coil will not be a sine wave and will be predominately twice the frequency plus lots of harmonics.
To answer F6's question, a coil placed across the opening of the solenoid coil would have 2.56e-7 webers of flux passing through it at the 128 ampere-turn value of toroidal coil current. I am not familiiar with Naudin's work on this so I can't comment on whether that is enough to light his LED. But with say 100 turns and 10KHz drive that would result in 1.6V. Note that my depth was only 10mm (this is a 2D program) whereas across that opening the length is 60mm in this simulation. So that 1.6V is more likely to be 10V.
Smudge
@Smudge
From my tests, the flux goes out in the axis of the magnets, as in your simulation. In my real setup, it is in the axis between the two coils wound on each side of the toroid, since I use DC current to simulate the magnet and polarize the toroid. This is expected since each half of the toroid will tend to behave a bit like a solenoid, because the flux can hardly loop back to the side where the permeability has dropped.
However, the permeability must remain at a large value with respect to the air, for example 1000 on one side for 30000 on the other, otherwise it is as if the toroid was open on the side of the low permeability, and so we would have a trivial coupling. This is perhaps what happens in the Naudin's experiment.
With FEMM, can you get the permeability at the time and position when it is the lowest?
I realize that even with the knowledge of the leakage flux, it will not be possible to know if the FEM will be sufficient to light the LEDs, because the counter-flux of the cylindrical coil due to Lenz's law, will be transferred to the toroid, opposing its FEM and lowering the collected flux, and the decrease will depend on the coupling parameters.
The model of the whole setup is needed. I'll see if CST can do it.
While playing with my coils I wanted to see if the probe coil, which has the same role as the cylindrical coil, coupled at best with the toroid, had repercussions on the input signal when tuned to the resonance, where it behaves like a short circuit. The input signal does not weaken at all, although I put in series with the generator a 10 K resistor to better see a possible voltage drop. On the other hand, the polarization of the toroid makes the input voltage drop, because I suppose, the impedance of the coil drops with the drop of the permeability.
So I can't conclude for the moment that the coupling with the probe-coil has no effect on the input. It is possible that it does by its "counter-field", but that this counter-field affects the permeability in the opposite way to that of the signal generator, cancelling the effect. Simple hypothesis. It is also possible that the probe-coil is not a sufficient load. The assembly seemed simple, but if we want to check everything, it's endless... :) >:(
The topology that JL Naudin presented and that Itsu replicated in one form can be easily defined once the source of induction in the air coil is established. I'm not sure if this has been done or not at this point so this is my opinion on what is the source.
As I stated previously, the air coil is simply a flux sensor and the toroid in it's various configurations with PMs is the induction source that creates the differential in the so called mag and demag currents in the air coil. Simply put, the demag current in the air coil is dependent on the mean voltage during the field collapse in the toroid and is ~di = E*t/Laircoil .
Attached are two pix of the transformer assembly that is used to demonstrate the above and this transformer/air coil assembly is considerably more efficient than Naudin presentations but operates in the same manner. This transformer however is not what it appears at first glance when one views the break down of the assembly. The 3019 pot core has it's sides cut down thus allowing flux to enter the air coil in a conventional manner and the pot core also provides a higher perm material than air to the so called air coil.
The specs for this assembly is as follows:
Lpot = 9.15mH
Lair = 1.87mH
Lpot aid Lair = 16.54mH
Lpot buck Lair = 4.98mH
M = 2.89e-3
k = .698
The one scope pix shows the peak demag current at -924ma in the air coil and the avalanche mean voltage of the IRF636 mosfet at 288.6v over a time period of 6.72us. Calculating the peak current according to the above would be 288.6*6.72e-6/1.87e-3 = 1.037 amps. This is greater than the measured [924ma] by 12% which is most likely due to the diode voltage drop in the secondary and the resistance of the windings.
Therefore, the primary applied voltage on the induction source determines the air coil mag current and the higher voltage during the induction source collapse determines the air coil demag current. Just my opinion.
Does this device have any potential for OU?
regards,
Pm
Hi Partzman,
If we stick to classical electromagnetism, Naudin's 2SGen is a simple transformer, of very bad design. Indeed the primary is a toroidal coil, while the secondary is a cylindrical coil, so the coupling is very bad.
How is it improved ? By saturating more or less the toroidal core with magnets, reducing the permeability in some places, the flux leakage is favored, the flux that should have remained confined in the toroid escapes and the cylindrical coil captures it better.
So improving the 2SGen is easy, just take a real transformer instead: we have the same function with an efficiency > 90%. :)
Now we can assume that there is something beyond appearances, for example that if the permeability of the toroid remains high enough, then even if it varies along the torus, we should not have significant flux leakage. This is the assumption I made, but I have a hard time verifying it, because most probably, this assumption is wrong and the 2SGen is indeed just a bad transformer.
To remotely detect the existence of a flux confined in a toroid is theoretically impossible without using a circuit surrounding this flux (thus whose surface cuts the flux, e.g. thanks to a conductor passing through the hole of the toroid), unless there are experimental biases such as flux leaks. Experimentally, there will always be leaks. What is important to know is their level. With magnets completely saturating the core on one part, it is as if we had an open toroid, or a half-toroid, so obviously we will be able to couple it easily and efficiently to any coil. But we will not have invented anything new. There's no OU in it.
With Smudge we have already discussed a lot of ideas with the potential vector. It is not zero in the space outside the toroid. Can we recover energy from it by the virtue that E=-δA/δt, or more daringly that E=-δA/δx * δdx/δt = -v*δA/δx, maybe this setup would allow it, that's what I was trying to check, taking advantage of this 2SGen topic that Itsu has revived.
When you ask about OU potentiality, it is impossible to say, whatever the setup. Since a science consists in explaining and modeling what we observe, and since we have not yet observed any OU, or in any case there is no consensus on the fact that we have observed any, we have no science of OU, we cannot predict anything.
My point of view is that the potentiality of OU is in anything, with more probability in what has not already been studied than in what is commonplace, but it is a bet, an a priori that we take, to test and keep or reject according to the results. Our initial approach is therefore not scientific. But at least our method must be scientific and technical to obtain the concrete products we need, and that consists in experimentally verifying our daring hypothesis and distinguishing what is conventional from what would be a sign of anomaly. It's hard to say for sure about 2SGen at the moment, although there are many signs that it is not a pathway for OU.
You can get a good handle on how the system performs using magnetic domain analysis. The first image below shows the magnet, the ring core and the air coil with the magnetic domain circuit superimposed. We have the ability to establish the values of all those circuit components. The non linear resistor (actually reluctance) characteristics are easily got using the known non linear BH curve for the core material. The air gap values and air paths within the air coil and outside the air coil values can be reasonably deduced. The drive mmfs are the known input current to the toroidal coil. The second image is a slightly simplified circuit where I also show the effect of a load resistor across the air coil as an inductor whose induced voltage (actually a mmf) correctly accounts for the load current and you don't have to worry about Lenz's Law any more. This circuit can be modeled in a Spice like program and will give the dynamic performance, and in my view that is better than second guessing what is going on inside the system due to the saturation effects.
Smudge
I agree with your diagram O0.
Just a remark, the reluctance Rm is not the same for the DC flux and the AC flux. Indeed the permeability of neodymium is 1.05 so hardly different from air for the AC flux, while the DC flux passes perfectly through the neodymium since it is generated directly by the mass. We could complete the circuit by making 2 paths, one for the AC the other for the DC. Is it really necessary, I don't know.
The tricky part would be Rcore, since the component will have to be created in LTspice. Without hysteresis it would be relatively easy, but if you want to put hysteresis, rather difficult, because the current/voltage relation is not a bijective function anymore. I think your diagram will give correct results on the order of magnitude of the induced current, and that's the important point. If subtle effects have significant effects, we would not see it, for example, the proximity of the toroid core can influence the inductance of the air coil, and as this core is not linear, influence it in a complex way. Again I don't know if this would be a real problem, but that's why I prefer physical modeling to electronic modeling. Do you plan to go as far as modeling in LTspice? I'm trying to get familiar with CST. It took me over a month to get used to it for the antennas, and now in magneostatic or quasistatic I feel like I have to start from the beginning, it's very different!
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.11, 17:08:01
Just a remark, the reluctance Rm is not the same for the DC flux and the AC flux. Indeed the permeability of neodymium is 1.05 so hardly different from air for the AC flux, while the DC flux passes perfectly through the neodymium since it is generated directly by the mass. We could complete the circuit by making 2 paths, one for the AC the other for the DC. Is it really necessary, I don't know.
It is not necessary. The DC flux is correctly accounted for by the magnet's mmf U
M shown as a battery. The DC flux path through R
M and the reluctances external to the magnet correctly set the magnet's operating point on its BH curve.
QuoteThe tricky part would be Rcore, since the component will have to be created in LTspice. Without hysteresis it would be relatively easy, but if you want to put hysteresis, rather difficult, because the current/voltage relation is not a bijective function anymore.
I agree but any hysteresis there will only account for small loss. The advantage of using Neo magnets is their linear BH characteristic hence no change of magnetization and no significant hysteresis over the operating range.
QuoteI think your diagram will give correct results on the order of magnitude of the induced current, and that's the important point. If subtle effects have significant effects, we would not see it, for example, the proximity of the toroid core can influence the inductance of the air coil, and as this core is not linear, influence it in a complex way. Again I don't know if this would be a real problem, but that's why I prefer physical modeling to electronic modeling.
I think the model correctly accounts for the non-linear inductance effects. I agree, the model will not show any subtle effects, but it might give a better understanding of what is going on so that possible subtle effects can then be seen in context.
QuoteDo you plan to go as far as modeling in LTspice? I'm trying to get familiar with CST. It took me over a month to get used to it for the antennas, and now in magneostatic or quasistatic I feel like I have to start from the beginning, it's very different!
I don't have enough detail to determine the component values but if someone gives me details I will give it a go. Or I could just invent my own geometry and do it that way for a similar device.
Smudge
Just as an aside, I have not given up on the full simulation of the 2SGen, but it takes a long time to master the tool before I can present a solid result.
A few days or weeks will be necessary. I will continue here.
Itsu, and all:
Guys, it seams like the door has been closed on the Akula/Ruslan/Stalker thread. And the discussion ended in talks by F6 about all being nothing but fakes, again. Wow. As if we asked his opinion.
I know that neither myself nor Itsu are done with that project, but, we are STUCK, and don't know what more to do, at this time.
However, I don't consider my time as wasted, as we are always learning something, even if it's what does not work, as expected. I now know what does not work. But, still don't know what does.
Also, it would be very good to continue by a proper communication with the supposed inventors. Such as Stalker, etc. Or at least someone that can actually help us out, with hands on tests, and not just in theories.
We two are the only ones that have made replications here, and both have gotten to a point that we don't know what more needs to be done. It is not due to lost interest in the project, but it is still amazing that only just a few people even tried to build the device.
Geofusion has also not followed through, even after I invited him to come here.
So, I don't know what we have done wrong, but, I want to make it right. As these table top toys are just a stepping stone for other bigger and better devices, in the future. Hopefully, in my future, as I'm not getting any younger.
Sorry, if I posted on the wrong thread, (Itsu's thread), but all other doors (threads) were closed. I also want to thank Vasik for his great contributions.
Let me know what you think, hopefully in a positive direction. As I still think that we have lots to learn and to discuss, to make this work right.
NickZ
Hi Nick,
I think there are more guys still working on the device then just you and me.
Maxolous, Deggory (Justawat), Utopia Now, Jeg (OU.com), Geo and Vasik come in mind.
I was hoping that they would join in more in the last thread and present their results, but somehow they did not.
I think / hope that when there is a new thread opened they will join again and do present their results as thats is the only way we as a team can crack this nut.
Itsu
Thanks Itsu.
Agreed.
At least Vasik is still here, and has invested much time and real research efforts on this project. My hats off to him...
And he is our only tie to that part of the world. As T-1000 and others are not around. And he can possibly see some things first hand, like Wesley did.
Hopefully Verpies will join us, as well. So, we can all butt heads over critical thinking, and test to see what works, and what doesn't, instead of fairy tales.
NickZ
PS. How much proof do we need? https://youtu.be/e_kXFGNdANU
The contribution of verpies will be vital as are the contributions of Smudge, Picowatt, Partzman etc.. but there also lies the problem.
We as builders will have to have the will and the patience to listen to what these guys are telling us and perform some tests as they requests them.
In the past i notice that that will seldom work and often terminates such a cooperation.
Everyone sticks to their own believes and setup and is not willing to accept must changes.
Until this mentality changes we have little chance to succeed.
Itsu
Yes, I totally understand.
And that is why the need of some help from those that know just what is really needed.
So we can compare notes, readings, frequencies, and such. That was what I tried to do.
As there is no one in my part of the world that can help. Even Geo, well he's out to lunch.
NickZ
This thread should stay what it is, a place for me to put various things into the open, so not dedicated to a specific item.
Thanks, Itsu
Triggered by this thread: https://overunity.com/index.php?topic=19351.msg573571#msg573571 I replicated the perpetual motion device shown in the videos there using 3D printed parts.
As expected, it does not work as advertised :)
A video of my device is here: https://youtu.be/i6cAFZNks90
The 7 3D printed parts (stl files) are zipped and attached below.
I used a Prusa Mk3 printer with PLA at 0.15mm, 15% filling and "full support" for the 2 "disksupport" parts (due to their tapered tops).
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2023.02.02, 12:31:12
Triggered by this thread: https://overunity.com/index.php?topic=19351.msg573571#msg573571 I replicated the perpetual motion device shown in the videos there using 3D printed parts.
As expected, it does not work as advertised :)
A video of my device is here: https://youtu.be/i6cAFZNks90
The 7 3D printed parts (stl files) are zipped and attached below.
I used a Prusa Mk3 printer with PLA at 0.15mm, 15% filling and "full support" for the 2 "disksupport" parts (due to their tapered tops).
Itsu
What a great job Itsu. O0
Luckily I checked in at OU.Com I see you made reference to our replication attempts some 6 or so years ago. They definitely work if there's plenty of electrostatic energy around.
Cheers Graham.
As a Post Script I wonder if your Ham radio aerial/antenna could provide a tiny bit of static electricity at the points? You might need to ground the ramp strip.
Thanks Graham,
Seems to work great using a Van de Graaff generator like you showed.
So i tried with a plasma ball, which according to google should also produce static electricity.
But the below setup does not make any difference, it still stops after a few seconds.
Not strange if you look at the signal picked up with my HV probe, which is almost pure AC.
I suspect the use of my Ham radio equipment also makes no difference, as it is also RF AC.
I need to find a real source of static electricity.
Itsu
Using an Avramenko's Plug at the pickup copper tape loading a 2100V 2nF capacitor to 1000V, then leading this 1000V DC to the perpetual motion device pins, but still no difference in running time.
Guess 1000V is not enough.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2023.02.02, 20:21:34
Thanks Graham,
Seems to work great using a Van de Graaff generator like you showed.
So i tried with a plasma ball, which according to google should also produce static electricity.
But the below setup does not make any difference, it still stops after a few seconds.
Not strange if you look at the signal picked up with my HV probe, which is almost pure AC.
I suspect the use of my Ham radio equipment also makes no difference, as it is also RF AC.
I need to find a real source of static electricity.
Itsu
I have that exact plasma ball you pictured. My scope shows exact same as yours at about 27 Khz.
Good morning Itsu.
Just a thought, is the plastic filament anti static by any chance? I remember when we made the first rotor for the Franklin motor we accidentally chose a plastic with just those properties, nothing happened....
By the way, many thanks for your detailed analysis of the Plasma globe. Most useful.... ;)
Cheers Graham.
Hi Graham, thanks for the heads-up, i measured very high (OL) resistance on the PLA plastic disk, so i guess it's OK, but i can make a disk out of anything else (styrofoam) and retest.
But i think i will need similar static voltages as your "van de Graaff" machine (several 100K volts??) before to see any effect.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2023.02.03, 16:26:40
Hi Graham, thanks for the heads-up, i measured very high (OL) resistance on the PLA plastic disk, so i guess it's OK, but i can make a disk out of anything else (styrofoam) and retest.
But i think i will need similar static voltages as your "van de Graaff" machine (several 100K volts??) before to see any effect.
Itsu
Hi Itsu.
Well it seems that PLA is quite Hygroscopic in nature and readily accepts water vapour. The obvious choice is Styrofoam both light and highly insulative. Regarding my earlier remark about your Ham equipment I was actually suggesting that the Aerial could act as an atmospheric collector and the central conductor be the conduit to the points.
Obviously you could also try rubbing a Glass rod with fur just like in the olden days. O0
Cheers Graham.
Thanks Graham,
so Hygroscopic materials (like PLA) should be avoided in static electricity devices, at least in the static electricity carrying parts like the disk.
Looking for a suitable piece of styrofoam to redo the disk.......
Ok about the aerial, but since i moved to my present place i did not erect any antenna's, so i can't use that either.
Itsu
Hi all,
2 days ago i have had installed a 15kWh solar battery system hooked up to our 11-year-old 6kW (24 panels of 250W) solar panel.
The idea is to collect the free solar power during the day to use it in the evening.
This was driven by the notion that the current netting (netting the supplied energy delivered to the grid with the energy taken from the grid) will be stopped in the near future here in The Netherlands.
We have / had a 50% netting, so we did not pay for any electricity these last 11 years (we even often got a nice bonus at year's end).
Anyway, this is the battery system, which is tuning itself right now and seems to work as we expected it would:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=51701;image)
We could add a 4th 5kWh module, totaling 20kWh of storage, but this will be decided after some time and only if needed.
With a daily consumption of about 7kWh we could last 2 days on a full charge, but this will change drastically nearing the wintertime as we have some infrared panels supplying additional heating in some rooms relieving the natural gas heating system.
Regards Itsu
Very nice setup you have there Itsu!
In September 2022 I bought and installed 6x 375W SunPower Maxeon 3 DC Black solar panels on my garage roof and then added a Solax 7.5kW inverter and 3x Solax 5.8kWh batteries. The panels will generate up to 2.5kW on a nice sunny day and around 500W on an overcast day.
I've set up a Home Assistant dashboard showing the relevant stats. from the inverter so I can check on things at a glance.
(https://i.ibb.co/ctyqWyw/Solar.png) (https://ibb.co/BjfkhfG)
I have another 6x panels sitting in our garden. I need to buy/hire some scaffolding to replace some ageing 250W panels on our main roof.
I set the batteries to charge overnight to 60% at a cheap rate, then the following day they charge up to 100% from solar ready to discharge to avoid our 16:00-20:00 peak rate. The overnight rate varies from -5p (yes, negative!) to 10p per kWh. The peak rate can be anywhere from 20p to 50p. The batteries only tend to discharge down to 40% during the peak rate window, unless we happen to be using an extraordinary amount of power during that time.
Thanks Ifarrant,
so you have a dynamic energy contract with cheap nightly rates etc., well my provider (like 95% of them here) do not allow a dynamic contract when having solar panels, so i have a fairly fixed variable contract.
Need to look for another provider, i guess.
For now, we try to charge the batteries to full during the day and use it during the evening / night, which is no problem now (dropped overnight to 77% first day and 83% last night).
I have the "myenergi app" which provide me with all the useful data and graphs, but probably will switch to or add "HomeWizzard Enery" for monitoring stuff.
Regards Itsu
Yeah our unit rate varies every half hour, but it is generally much cheaper between 00:00 and 06:00 so I've configured my inverter to charge the batteries during that window and then discharge between 16:00 and 20:00. I might need to tweak that to extend it to 21:00, looking at today's rates. I wanted to avoid having to make changes every day, so it's good that a pattern has emerged that I can tailor my system to.
This is today's rate breakdown, for example:
(https://i.ibb.co/6D0mVqT/Octopus.png) (https://ibb.co/RQT9ZJs)
Using this thread to pass on some pictures for Graham.
Graham, the spooked gear has the following dimensions, see first picture:
So removing the teeth will keep a 232.5mm wheel, see also first picture and think without teeth.
Removing the teeth and replace by a 5mm thick rim will keep a 246mm wheel, see second picture
Or replace the rim by any diameter (like 237mm)
Itsu
Good morning Itsu.
I'm looking for a simple spoked wheel @ a diameter of 237 mm with a thickness of 20 mm. Just like one of my engine flywheels. The hole in the middle needs to be the same as the geared ones.
If I've measured correctly a 2 mm thick Steel plate should run exactly through the gap between the two geared wheels?
This design will enable me to secure plates of any length against the rim.
Kind regards. Graham.
Graham,
here a picture of the new wheel, if OK, then see the .STL file attached, if not OK, just mention the changes O0
Itsu